Re: (Important) Boost Foundation meeting this Wednesday

From: Zach Laine (whatwasthataddress_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-03-12 15:32:39

I would like something along those lines.  That is, I would like a
review of functionality, not aesthetics.  Re-reading What Ion wrote, I
realize I'm not up for a twice-yearly review, so much as one-time
input to the web developers on users' needs.

Zach

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 2:41 AM Ion Gaztañaga via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> El 12/03/2024 a las 2:39, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost escribió:
> >> Is there any reason that the new web site could not be subjected to a
> >> process similar to the formal process for new libraries?  This would
> >> help build a consensus around functionality, design, etc.  I just don't
> >> see any other way to be sure that all considerations are accounted for.
>
> The main difference IMHO is that the mailing list is full of C++ experts
> that are probably terrible at design and usability ;-) Just look the
> aesthetics of our templated or preprocessor metaprogramming code!
>
> Now seriously, not a formal review, but I think it's important that main
> issues (https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2/issues and
> https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2-docs/issues) could be discussed
> and monitored periodically (say, every 6 months) in the ML. Would be
> cpp.al folks fine with this approach?
>
> Best,
>
> Ion
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost