On 14/03/2017 12:57, Stefan Seefeld via Boost wrote:
But pushing for accelerated growth is certainly not among the things I would promote.
I know what you're saying. But remember the "crushing under its own weight" is an active choice of not reaching consensus on anything different by the community. We, as a group, choose to be crushed. We could choose different. We have the resources. I try to keep asking: "what is best for the larger C++ ecosystem?" * Is high quality peer review valuable? YES * Is a staging ground before standardisation valuable? YES So let's make Boost do those things as best we can. That means admitting as many high quality C++ libraries as we can, and encouraging as many people as possible to consider submitting their C++ library to Boost. I am afraid that means growing as fast as we can.
I always thought that the "self-organized" nature of Boost processes (including the review process) is a means to select the "generally useful" submissions from the "esoteric corner case" ones. In other words: if a library submitter can't gather enough interest in the wider community to find reviewers and a review manager, it implies the submitted project is finally not a good candidate for addition.
It's a valid point that I have significant sympathy with. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/