None of these points involve the need to increase the amount of accepted libraries at any cost. As others have pointed out, Boost's livelihood does not directly depend on the number of accepted libraries but just on their quality. Adding money to the mix favors adding libraries at all cost, non-withstanding their quality or real-world-need, emphasizing the commercial aspect.
As you usual, you deliberately misquote or cherry pick quote people and then make a big song and dance about your reinterpretation of what they said. It's tiring and irritating. I never said payment for adding new libraries. I did say payment for new library REVIEWS and especially the **ADMIN** of reviewing them. Rejection of a submitted library is just fine. Letting submitted libraries stew for up to SEVEN years before getting reviewed is UNACCEPTABLE if Boost is to remain even remotely relevant. I now snip the usual Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt you like to sow Hartmut whenever actual REAL CHANGE is proposed or discussed, leaving us with this which had some value:
This would also raise a lot of questions I wouldn't even know how to start answering. Like:
- What's next? Letting library authors pay for their library being reviewed? After all THEY are the most interested parties in adding their work to Boost...
What has that to do with anything being proposed? Nothing.
- Or perhaps accepting 'donations' from companies earmarked for paying a review manager, further skewing the review process?
What has that to do with anything being proposed? Nothing. Totally separate matter.
- Will every review manager receive the money? Regardless of the quality of how the review is managed? What would be the criteria for a review manager doing a good enough job to receive the payment? Who decides on this? How many reviews would be a single person be allowed to perform?
These are good questions. Plenty of possibilities. None are showstoppers to the idea, not even remotely.
- Would previous review managers receive an equally generous payment for the libraries reviewed in the past? If yes - why, if no - why not?
Another good question, and again not insolvable in either direction. Not a showstopper. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/