Subject: Re: [boost] Draft copy - Call for Submissions - CMake for Boost
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-19 00:51:03
On 10/18/18 5:40 PM, Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:
> A quick reply to this particular part. I'm opposed to this anonymity
> protocol and think that submitters should be *required* to come
> forward and actively participate in the review.
Of course. But is it necessary that they identify themselves with their
> I think trying to
> attract more submissions by relieving the authors from the review
> process is terribly misguided and detrimental to both Boost and the
> proposed submissions.
In no way is it my intention to do that. Of course I expect submitters
to participate like all authors do.
> Let me be very clear about this. An author of a candidate build system
> solution for Boost should be willing to accept responsibility for a
> core component of our infrastructure. He should be willing to become
> part of the community and embrace the practices we take, including the
> reviews. The author should be willing to support the use cases we have
> in 100+ libraries and also provide long-term support for the solution
> in the future, should it be accepted. If an author is not willing to
> participate in technical discussions about his submission from the
> very start then I don't want to waste my time on reviewing it, let
> alone using it. If an author submits a solution with no intention to
> support it then I'm not interested in it. If this means no CMake
> submissions at all then so be it - I would rather have zero CMake
> support in Boost than a half-baked unsupported solution.
My idea was that making it more attractive for potential submitters, we
might draw more submissions than we otherwise might and hence end up
with a better one.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk