The above proposed policy effectively pushes the bottleneck higher up the chain, but I think that's no bad thing. Library authors, myself included, like to build cathedrals irrespective of whether anyone will ever use them nor appreciate them. Currently it's too easy to build a library nobody will ever use and get it into the review queue where it will languish for many years because no review manager will touch it. That part needs to change.
I like the idea. Of course, regarding the endorsements, you now have to define who qualifies as "Boost member". Is it anyone who signed up for boost-dev mailing list?
I guess it probably is. We've not had problems with people gaming the review process to get a library in no matter what by flooding the review process with fake positive reviews. So I guess anyone on boost-dev is fine.
Another, similar suggestion. When we were planing for review with Robert, we were already aware of two people having informally committed to submitting a review. I liked the idea a lot. Maybe it can be formalized. One of the criteria for review-readiness could be to have at least N (where N = 2 or similar) people who declare that they would submit a review. This declaration is not binding.
Great idea, and I think that that would be the case in practice anyway.
This prevents the situations where a review ends in the rejection due to lack of reviewers. I am not sure if it is the same as endorsement.
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. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/