"Andreas Huber" <ahd6974-spamgroupstrap@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cluamk$sa6$1@sea.gmane.org...
Johan Nilsson wrote:
Could the NIH syndrome be diminished by easier accepting more people into the actual development process for a particular library? Ok, so
For me the NIH syndrome always implies a good amount of non-technical arguments, which are almost absent here. So, I don't think that the boost community actually suffers from NIH. It might suffer from over-perfectionism. However, I believe this is exactly the reason for the exceptional quality of the libraries and would therefore not want to change anything.
I'm mostly a lurker here, but even so I believe I've seen people from time to time declaring their willingness to participate in developing a new library, without getting some real response. Take them in, let them be a part of the effort, and maybe the NIH problem will be lessened.
I'm rather skeptical about that approach. Groups of similarly capable people are usually not very good at *designing* a library (unless there's a boss who has the last word on all the decisions). However, I think groups are unbeatable at uncovering design-flaws. So the best designs are initially often invented by an individual and the input later given by a group (users, boost-members, etc.) should then be used to refine until both sides are satisfied. Unfortunately, this puts most of the burden on the library submitter but I think it is the best process if you aim for high quality.
Amen Robert Ramey