Could the following example be enough?
Boost.Thread compliance with C++0x standard ================================= Adapt the current Boost.Thread interface to the C++0x standard proposal, for C++98 and C++0x compilers.
I think that this is too specific. If we post this as an example, we'll get "I am going to port Boost.Thread to C++0x" proposals. I think the trick here is to write a general C++0x project category and then list a number of libraries that could be ported to, adapted to, or even rewritten for C++0x. The latter is especially important. C++0x is quite a different language than C++, and some of the design decisions made for previous libraries may not be good choices using 0x. In fact, I'd be tempted to forgo straightforward ports and focus on entire rewrites. I doubt that it's feasible for any substantial libraries, but it does start developing some experience at designing for the newer language. I think that we should be intentionally vague when publishing these kinds of projects. Something like == C++0x Boost.Thread == Mentors: xxx, yyy gives a lot of room for interpretation :) Andrew PS I'm not against straightforward projects (i.e., port Boost.Thread to 0x), but I am against writing requirements as part of the project proposal.