Tom Brinkman wrote:
One easy improvement would be to require that each approved library be endorsed/sponsered by a least one prominent boost member, such as Dave Abrahms, Jeff Garland or Thorsten Ottosen.
This is an easy improvement only if you're not Dave, Jeff or Thorsten ;-)
Another easy improvement would be to add accepted libraries under a probation or beta period of say six months. The library would remain beta until its stable enough and has additional time for more user scrutiny. A prominent boost member would make the judgement about when to remove the library from its beta period. During the beta period, the library author would be asked to complete the libraries documentation, examples and requested changes from the additional user scrutiny.
Why make a library which has been in development for a long time and has received intense scrutiny undergo a probationary period?
If there are no objections, I will start requesting that libraries under review be sponsered by at least prominent boost member. This would ensure that accepted libraries meet the approval of a least one prominent boost member.
This sounds similar to the mentoring idea that was proposed after the OOPSLA meeting. I think it's a good idea, as long as you expand the list of "prominents" to include all active library authors and maintainers.
Review Wizard, Tom Brinkiman
Jonathan