Subject: Re: [boost] The future and present of Boost
From: Antony Polukhin (antoshkka_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-22 08:14:35
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018, 00:09 Robert Ramey via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
> On 10/21/18 11:33 AM, Antony Polukhin via Boost wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018, 18:51 Robert Ramey via Boost
> Right, I'm sure that boost would be willing to review any such libraries
> when they are submitted.
I'm proposing to relax the review requirements for those libraries. Include
them even if the Boost feedback was "need more work". Simplify the review
We should give users and library authors a simple way to meet and interact.
Boost is a perfect platform for establishing existing practice and ensuring
library quality. Let's not loose it because of the exhausting review
process that requires a lot of time and scares of some of the authors. If
the library accepted into C++ or Library Fundamentals - then it was already
Another idea: how about dropping the "review manager" requirement? Allow
library author to manage the review and require a separate manager only if
the votes for library inclusion are doubtful or there's less than N votes.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk