On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 19:43, Vinnie Falco via Boost
Well, now that I have everyone's attention just before the release, I'd like to draw attention to the elephant in the room. That is, the declining level of activity on the Boost mailing lists and the declining level of participation in the Boost formal review process. Both in terms of the number of reviewers, and in terms of the difficulty in finding a review manager.
Hi, I think there still some points worth being discussed in this thread 1. Libraries that are proposed for boost may not have been written with that intention in mind. That may mean they don't follow the boost format. Boostfying may be too costly since after rejection authors would have to revert back. I think it should be explicitly stated that libraries can't be rejected on the basis of their noncompliance with e.g. namespace boost, boost documentation format and boost build system. 2. Make the review more transparent. If I understand correctly, almost anyone can be a review manager (criteria unclear) and that the acceptance is not decided counting yes and no votes. What happens however when the Review manager is not knowledgeable about the subject? How should he decide whether to accept or not? Authors want a fair treatment of their review. 3. I believe most proposals will come from people that are not paid to develop boost libraries and do it as a side project. That means the review schedule should make it easier for them to engage in the review process. At the moment however I see a 10 days review. Isn't this too short? In my case I would only be able to engage seriously on weekends. 4. I would like to have an easy to find link to a list of libraries that are being written for boost. Perhaps even in the front page. It gives the good impression that the community is thriving. Marcelo