Re: [boost] (Important) Boost Foundation meeting this Wednesday

I think there is a more likely alternative:  Conditional acceptance. This is common recommendation of specific reviewers as well as the review manager. So it a large number of cases, the final result is is a library with changes made in accordance with information which comes about as part of the review process. I know this as having suffered through three reviews, (2 successful, 1 not) this process is a huge contributor to the quality of the final library. I would expect that this same result would obtain when applied to a new boost web site (as well as any boost tool). There is wide consensus that: a) Boost will benefit from an updated website. b) it's a big job that only Vinnie has been willing to undertake. So I believe that the effort has been and will be viewed positively. What I want is to see is wider participation if the submission and validation of ideas on functionaly, scope, and even aesthetics. I know this is a huge pain for the developers, just as it is for library developers. But the pain is worth it. It will result in a much better product. In the future when some raises the question: "Why don't we ..." the answer will be in the archived reviews thus short circuiting the endless circular discussion about these topics. Traditionally, boost tools (including the website) have been developed on some individual initiative by a member of the "inner circle" and presented as a "fait compli". I think we need a more open and formal process for these things. It's the Boost Way and it distinguishes us from the standards process. Robert Ramey On 3/12/24 7:42 PM, Vinnie Falco wrote:

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 2:28 PM Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:

...

The authors of this work deserve a yes or no answer as to whether it's going to be accepted or not. That is the purpose of the Boost Review.

I think there is a more likely alternative:  Conditional acceptance. This is common

Thinking about this a bit more, I have some clarity into some of my recent uncomfortable feelings. A C++ library goes through the review process, and whether it passes or fails the library is still usable. The author can derive value from the library even if rejected, by using it in their own projects and encouraging others to use it and form a following.

A new Boost website however, is different. If the website is rejected, then most if not all of the work is for nothing. It is a total loss or close to it. We didn't build a new website on a whim, there was a discussion a few years ago about the need for a new site. There are stakeholders from the Boost community that have worked with us. Although the website was not designed by committee (if for no other reason that such a process makes failure likely), we did get community engagement once there was something worth looking at.

Unlike a C++ library, a new Boost website is really only usable for becoming a Boost website. The problem with a straight Boost Formal Review applied to the website, is that a rejection would likely discourage anyone from making the effort again in the first place. Case in point, if I was told at the beginning that our only option would be to publish our website on a different domain while David either co-opts our work himself to place on boost.org, or devalues our labor and puts up his own new website on boost.org, we would have never done the work in the first place.

The new website reflects my love the Boost Libraries, and in my opinion there needs to be an implicit understanding that if someone takes on the enormous risk of building a new Boost website, delivers on that promise, and demonstrates their understanding and adoption of Boost culture, we want to encourage and celebrate this. As the website (unlike a library) cannot be repurposed, a rejection would not only be an immense personal loss for me but represent a significant loss for Boost at a time when we need all the victories we can achieve.

I would ask everyone who loves Boost to rally and get behind this effort to publish this modern website, to show the onlookers and new potential community members that we are capable of supporting this high-risk / high-reward contribution. The alternative is too dismal to contemplate.

Thanks

-- Robert Ramey www.rrsd.com (805)569-3793