Subject: Re: [boost] Attn: New Boost library policy text ready for approval
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-20 22:14:29
On 3/20/17 2:56 PM, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:
>>>> 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 into the review queue is a bit outdated.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?
LOL - not to me. If I really studied it it might. But right now I'm in
TMP/constexpr hell and my brain is already overloaded.
> 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.
The whole thing seems pretty complex to me. I'm not sure who is going
to administer/script such a thing. FYI the incubator has the facility
for interested parties to submit a review along with star ratings. The
idea was that a library would get officially considered only once some
number of reviews indicated interest. Problem is/was - very few reviews
were submitted. So I'm a little skeptical that anything more elaborate
than that is going to be successful.