On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Niall Douglas via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On 17/03/2017 12:51, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:
Ok, I've asked boost-steering for feedback on this policy change. If they approve, I'll do up a beta of the Boost website for people to check, and if all okay it'll go live.
The boost-steering policy change discussion request can be found at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/boost-steering/rJPWdYodmtQ/JjaS-Kj4BgAJ for those interested.
There has been no objection to the proposed new policy for entering the review queue from boost-steering.
The proposed reformed policy page for submitting a library for review to Boost can be found at https://boost-website.nedprod.com/development/submissions.html. If you object to this new policy page, now is the time to say.
I'll give it until end of Wednesday 22nd March before I issue the pull request to boostorg/website.
If there is no objection, once the new policy is onto the public website, we'll clear from the review queue all libraries without review managers attached to them. If you had been thinking of volunteering to review manage a library in the queue, now is the time to make yourself known.
Thanks Niall for putting this together! A few comments: - "Otherwise, you will just end up wasting everyone's time." This sentence is a bit abrasive. I suggest striking it. - "If what you really want is a site that will just post your library without even looking at it, you should go elsewhere." likewise - "and the emotional demands of a formal review" likewise. If you want to give the reader a heads up about the ego-crushing force of critiques by brilliant people, I would probably word it differently. - "Too often" . . . this sounds a bit rantish. Actually, I think I'll stop here for now. I like the idea of this and I think you've got a lot of good ideas in here. The wording needs a little TLC IMHO. Would you be willing to let me take a stab at massaging it a bit? -- David