On Sep 26, 2005, at 8:48 AM, Richard Jennings wrote:
So I'd support the idea of a page called something like Quality Assurance Plan. Perhaps a section for library development and one on Boost releases with links to the existing guidelines.
This would be interesting.
One thing I don't see documented is how review managers are selected (beyond there being a queue which the Review Wizard manages). The peer review allows anyone to submit comments and it's up to the review manager and library author to consider them. How do we know that the review manager has suitable experience of Boost and C++ (or whatever) to carry out his/her role?
Review manages are long-time, established members of the Boost community and are almost exclusively authors of existing Boost libraries. They are implicitly trusted by the Boost community to make sound decisions.
Ultimately it seems that the quality of Boost rests on the experience of its library authors and reviewers, so how does an observer assess that?
Given that all library authors and reviewers are volunteers, I'm not sure how we can assess them as a group. Doug