Re: [boost] Attn: New Boost library policy text ready for approval

Hi all, I’ve been following the conversation on the Review Schedule, and it seems to be converging on a nice solution. I had been thinking that it would be a good idea to purge the schedule and start anew. Note that there are some libraries have listed managers but have not been scheduled for review long after a manager volunteered, so it’s worth also double-checking libraries that have managers (minus those where a manager has volunteered this calendar year). I am not fond of listing Reddit in the same class of “determine interest” as boost-dev and the incubator. That may be a useful place to get feedback, but is outside the boost community, and there are likely other venues to consider aside from reddit if we’re going to cast a wider net. The text on the current page candidate is stricter in tone than the original wording in the suggestion to the steering committee: "So before investing hundreds of hours of your time, use the Boost developers mailing list https://boost-website.nedprod.com/community/groups.html, the Boost Library Incubator http://blincubator.com/ and Reddit/r/cpp https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/ as forums to gauge …” versus "To find someone to endorse a new library for review, the library author ought to ideally canvas for a library's motivation before they ever begin writing or designing it, but failing that they need to approach boost-dev and publicise their library seeking people to publicly endorse it for review. Other forums work too e.g. reddit/r/cpp, the Incubator or anywhere else.” I like the general tone of the latter better. It should also be made clear that a library should be ready for review when it goes on the schedule, even if more updates are planned. If a library needs a couple of more months to be ready for review than it should not go on the schedule for a couple of more months. It is hard for me to compare the proposed page update to the current without seeing a diff, so I will look forward to seeing the pull request. All-in-all these are good ideas. Resetting the schedule is a good one-time thing to do, and requiring an endorsement before being added to the review schedule is consistent with Boost practices. Ron

On Mar 19, 2017, at 4:23 PM, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:

On 19/03/2017 18:04, Glen Fernandes via Boost wrote:

...

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:

...

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.

Why would the Boost review process page mandate "Reddit/r/cpp" as one of the places to solicit feedback about the new library submission?

It only refers to the "Determine Interest" section.

I've found Reddit very, very useful in helping refine the popularity of a new library before I begin. pcpp for example took in a lot of feedback from there before I began.

I also have them amazing in knocking documentation into new orbits of usefulness. The Outcome tutorial is mostly thanks to Reddit.

Note Reddit is only suitable for those two steps alone. The reset of the submission process is boost-dev and Incubator only. I've tried to clarify the wording, try https://boost-website.nedprod.com/development/submissions.html again. And Peter, note the seconders needed is one person now.

Niall

-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost