On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 8:01 AM, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:
Dear Boost,
I personally hope none of the suggestions 1, 2, 3, or 4, are implemented. I really worry about this desire to bring monetary value or payment into the Boost review process. I also have some concerns when I see the same person put forward similar ideas that all revolve around paying or hiring individuals. Niall, I understand you have good intentions, and I (like many others) appreciate your administration of GSOC, but the repetition of these ideas looks frighteningly like you want to address any employment or financial needs that you have by getting Boost to hire you for more things. Maybe I'm drawing too many conclusions from your blog posts[1]. I'm curious: The libraries that too niche or esoteric for any review manager to be interested (or reviewers to come forward) - to which libraries are you referring? In any case, I look forward to the mechanics of Boost being improved. I hope they're improved by better means that do not involve solving someone's employment needs. Glen [1] https://plus.google.com/+nialldouglas/posts/Ezjzxizm8Fp