On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Daniel Walker <daniel.j.walker@gmail.com> wrote: <snip>
But I don't know. Here's another idea. Rather than trying to make the analogy between boost and a single open source project, perhaps the analogy should be between boost and a single distributer of multiple open source projects, for example, Debain or Fedora. Debian, for example, has three tiers of "release": testing, stable, and unstable - everyone's favorite. ;) I'm not sure what quality control procedures they have, but maybe that's also a good place to look for ideas.
I was just sitting here thinking that benevolent "dictator" is really not an apt term for what I'm talking about. I'm really talking about some sort of public servants who would represent the interests of the community of boosters. These benevolent representatives would perform the service of insuring the community's votes are adhered to from one release to the next by judiciously exercising the power of write permission for unit tests on svn. We could call them the "quality congress." ;) Or maybe committee is a better word. Or maybe we could just make this a function of the release manager, if he isn't already overburdened. Anyway, I guess you all get the idea. Daniel Walker