On 14.03.2017 08:01, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:
Dear Boost,
I see that new candidate Boost libraries entering the review queue have exploded in recent years, with no less than *twenty-three* proposed libraries awaiting a review.
As the ongoing strength and vitality of Boost is inextricably linked to new growth,
Is it really ? I maintain what I have been saying for many years: Boost (as an organization) is crushing under its own weight. There are many other things I would consider being important for its vitality (such as changing its mode of organization - such as into an umbrella organization of relatively autonomous projects). But pushing for accelerated growth is certainly not among the things I would promote.
I think that waiting around for years for someone to volunteer to manage a review is not healthy.
I always thought that the "self-organized" nature of Boost processes (including the review process) is a means to select the "generally useful" submissions from the "esoteric corner case" ones. In other words: if a library submitter can't gather enough interest in the wider community to find reviewers and a review manager, it implies the submitted project is finally not a good candidate for addition. *That* is part of the strength of Boost (and of Open Source projects in general, for that matter): It really represents the community's needs, rather than what any particular party pushes through. Best, Stefan -- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...