Do you actually think the current peer review process is meaningless, due to the fluidity of our operations?
I wish I could get someone to just start composing a page of best practices without jumping headlong into trying to impose constraints on our contributors. We haven't even tried making such guidelines available yet.
I think one of the issues why we may be seeing a problem is that boost is a different library than it was a few years ago. The number of new libraries has grown significantly and some of them are becoming quite high level and domain specific. However, most new libraries don't get much exposure until they are officially released by boost and as such are subject to more change than older, more established libraries. That in turn also means that new libraries should be allowed more flexibility in their evolution, as their user base is smaller. Dave Handley and I have already mentioned this a few times in one of the other threads but nobody really responded. Daniel Walker also suggested a model similar to what Debian or Ubuntu do, which has some similarity, so I'm trying to resurrect it the idea. I think the guidelines should be ultimately tied to the concept of the "stable" versus "evolving" libraries. Here's the original post describing the perceived advantages of this approach: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/182741/match=core Tom