I usually tend to recommend the rejection of libraries in Boost Reviews, following the reasoning "first polish the library, then we will decide", or "I want to assess the final product rather than a (sound) promise". But I am always outvoted. Boost Reviews gravitate towards just accepting anything that "looks promising". In that vein, I would be more comfortable not giving an "accept" verdict just yet. Instead, give encouragement and support, and reconvene when the reported concerns (some resulting from bad communication (also in the documentation)) have been addressed.
The only thing that makes me hesitate is that we didn't do that for other libraries in recent history. I think we have recently lowered the bar for Boost submissions acceptance.
Regards, &rzej;
I am going to disagree with you here. The last five reviews have been Hub (accepted first go), Multi (pending second review), Decimal (accepted after two reviews), SQLite (rejected after second review), Bloom (accepted first go). I would hardly say that standards have lowered. If you start from the bottom of the review results page and work up you'll see large streaks of acceptances in short time periods [1]. Matt [1] https://www.boost.org/doc/formal-reviews/review-results.html