Subject: Re: [boost] Attn: New Boost library policy text ready for approval
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-20 21:56:47
>> > Back on topic, I think that the current process of getting a library
>> > into the review queue is a bit outdated. I suggest we make use of >
>> existing infrastructure and make a Github repository "review" owned by
>> > the Review Wizard in which submissions occur by way of the endorsing
>> > Boost member creating an issue with the description of the library.
>> The problem with this is that we don't want one member endorsing a
>> library for review. We want *lots*.
>> Almost without doubt when potential review managers scan the list of
>> review pending libraries, they will prioritise those libraries with
>> the most public endorsements.
> How would they know which libraries have the most endorsements?
I had been thinking that an extra column in the table at
http://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html would be entitled
"Seconded by" and in the cell would be the names of all those who
endorsed that library for review. In other words, if you Peter ask for
endorsements for review here for your new library SharedPtr2 or
something, and say Edward, myself, Robert, Beman and Michael all
publicly say "this library looks very likely to pass a review", all our
names appear in that column.
Does this make sense now?
I would not recommend a "click to star" type system for endorsing a
library for review. Endorsing a library for review publicly with your
name is a solemn statement that you have given a cursory check of the
library and that you publicly declare you think it has some chance of
passing a review.
I have no opposition to a *separate* "click to star" upvoting system so
people can easily upvote some review as being more urgent than others.
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk