Re: [boost] Draft copy - Call for Submissions - CMake for Boost

Subject: Re: [boost] Draft copy - Call for Submissions - CMake for Boost
From: David Sankel (camior_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-11-05 05:31:30

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 4:44 PM Robert Ramey via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> The following is a draft of the document of I have planned to post on
> behalf of Boost on or around 1 November 2018 as the first step in our
> next attempt to accommodate CMake in Boost.
>

Thank you Robert! It is awesome to see this effort move forward.

Overall I think the proposal is sound. There were a couple parts that I
think could be improved to get a stronger consensus on the call itself.

c) The name of the author of a submission will not be included in the
> submission.  [...]
>
> The motivation for this anonymity is to attract submitters who find the
> boost review process distressing, annoying and/or unpleasant. It should
> also address the concerns of those who beleive that by not being a
> "boost insider" they won't get fair consideration.  Boost is first and
> foremost a meritocracy.  We seek the very best in everything regardless
> of other considerations.
>

Have you identified any folks in particular who would like to submit a
proposal but only under the condition of anonymity?

Like others, I'd suggest snipping this part. If someone would like to come
forward with a proposal anonymously, I think we should do our best to
accommodate, but beyond that I don't think it should be a requirement. I
don't think anonymity will significantly impact the number of proposals
coming forward or the discussion, and it looks strange for a Boost call.

f) when the submission is integrated into boost and is shown fulfill the
> requirements stipulated by the review manager.  The author will receive
> a "prize" of $5000 and a large but cheap medal on a ribbon hopefully to
> be awarded at the next C++Now (Boost Con).  As this is written, this
> prize is subject to finding a funding source.  It's understood that this
> stipend is in no way compensation, for all the work and aggravation of
> this task.  But we hope that it will serve as a tangible token of our
> gratitude for solving one of Boosts most pressing and difficult problems.
>

I'm not sure how or if this can be done, but I can certainly reach out to
the conservancy to get some advice.

I think this is an interesting idea, but one drawback is that it creates a
disincentive for collaboration which should be encouraged. Perhaps it could
be worded in a way such that the award can be given to those who provided
outstanding contributions towards the effort. For example, it could
partially go toward the winning author, a solid runner up, or perhaps
someone else who contributed in a significant way.

A plaque awarded at C++Now is another option.

-- David