On 3/12/24 2:09 PM, Ion Gaztañaga via Boost wrote:
El 12/03/2024 a las 17:24, Alan de Freitas via Boost escribió:
Yes, I just wanted to propose some kind of "state of the website" review once a while from the community. It could be every 12, 24 or 36 months.
The difference with a library is that the website is representing somehow the whole federated project and it seems that some collaborators here might be worried about how the website project will go in the long run.
But yes, if issues are fixed (the website has now 100+ issues), and we have few complaints in the ML, then there is no need to review anything.
I don't think that the whole value of the Boost Review process is being appreciated here. It's unique as far as I'm concerned. It focuses everyone's comments to a short period where they can all be discussed together and the best decision can be made for the the component's inclusion/exclusion. To just say that we'll make the switch and people can bring up issues as they occur is not the same thing. Enough of the web site exists so that it's clear what it would be like. The authors of this work deserve a yes or no answer as to whether it's going to be accepted or not. That is the purpose of the Boost Review. It's an onerous process. Many library authors have declined to submit themselves to it. It is a lot of work. But I think on balance the Boost review process is the secret of Boosts success. For something as central to Boost as this web site, the review process should be applied. I'm asking the Board of Directors to impose this requirement if its not already clear that it's necessary. Robert Ramey