On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 4:44 PM Robert Ramey via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> 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