Re: Build Boost Back Better

From: Marcelo Zimbres Silva (mzimbres_at_[hidden])
Date: 2022-04-19 08:26:40

On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 19:43, Vinnie Falco via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Well, now that I have everyone's attention just before the release,
> I'd like to draw attention to the elephant in the room. That is, the
> declining level of activity on the Boost mailing lists and the
> declining level of participation in the Boost formal review process.
> Both in terms of the number of reviewers, and in terms of the
> difficulty in finding a review manager.

Hi,

I think there still some points worth being discussed in this thread

1. Libraries that are proposed for boost may not have been written
with that intention in mind. That may mean they don't follow the boost
format. Boostfying may be too costly since after rejection authors
would have to revert back.  I think it should be explicitly stated
that libraries can't be rejected on the basis of their noncompliance
with e.g. namespace boost, boost documentation format and boost build
system.

2. Make the review more transparent. If I understand correctly, almost
anyone can be a review manager (criteria unclear) and that the
acceptance is not decided counting yes and no votes. What happens
however when the Review manager is not knowledgeable about the
subject?  How should he decide whether to accept or not? Authors want
a fair treatment of their review.

3. I believe most proposals will come from people that are not paid to
develop boost libraries and do it as a side project. That means the
review schedule should make it easier for them to engage in the review
process. At the moment however I see a 10 days review. Isn't this too
short? In my case I would only be able to engage seriously on
weekends.

4. I would like to have an easy to find link to a list of libraries
that are being written for boost. Perhaps even in the front page. It
gives the good impression that the community is thriving.

Marcelo