Given the recent "incident" about users complaining about updates to boost and the fact that we have a wounderful METHOD that gave us so much respect and popularity, I'd like to propose something that's been in my mind for quite some time. The very high quaility of boost libraries is due to the so-called BOOST METHOD (I just coined the term, but how I like it :): the managed and peer-reviewed acceptance process. But there is a "hole" in this method, once a library is accepted the mantainer can do whatever it pleases with it. Of course we all assume and expect the maintainer to keep its hight quality, but this is a deviation from the basic "peer-reviewing is a requirement" principle. If the assumtion here were grounded we could just as well accept libraries directly because we trust the good jugdment of the author; but we don't, and there lies our "credibility". I really think is time to come up with a "direct-update" vs "managed-update" policy. The policy would define which updates can be directly executed by the library mantainer and which need a "formal update rewiew". Naturally, the formal update review should follow the same rules as the formal acceptance review. At the very least, interface-breaking changes should require a formal update review IMO. What do you all think? -- Fernando Cacciola SciSoft http://fcacciola.50webs.com/