On 10/18/18 5:40 PM, Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:
A quick reply to this particular part. I'm opposed to this anonymity protocol and think that submitters should be *required* to come forward and actively participate in the review.
Of course. But is it necessary that they identify themselves with their real names?
I think trying to attract more submissions by relieving the authors from the review process is terribly misguided and detrimental to both Boost and the proposed submissions.
In no way is it my intention to do that. Of course I expect submitters to participate like all authors do.
Let me be very clear about this. An author of a candidate build system solution for Boost should be willing to accept responsibility for a core component of our infrastructure. He should be willing to become part of the community and embrace the practices we take, including the reviews. The author should be willing to support the use cases we have in 100+ libraries and also provide long-term support for the solution in the future, should it be accepted. If an author is not willing to participate in technical discussions about his submission from the very start then I don't want to waste my time on reviewing it, let alone using it. If an author submits a solution with no intention to support it then I'm not interested in it. If this means no CMake submissions at all then so be it - I would rather have zero CMake support in Boost than a half-baked unsupported solution.
Absolutely. My idea was that making it more attractive for potential submitters, we might draw more submissions than we otherwise might and hence end up with a better one. Robert Ramey