On 3/16/17 11:24, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:
On 3/16/2017 10:49 AM, Michael Caisse via Boost wrote:
<snip other stuff>
* Not having a review manager might be an indicator of not enough interest in a library. It is the job of the author to ensure there is enough interest by the community. Perhaps the author hasn't done enough promotion. Maybe more solicitation on the ML is required or perhaps people just don't find the solution interesting. One person saying, "that sounds like a neat library!" shouldn't constitute interest.
I dislike the idea that if someone creates a worthy library as a possible addition to Boost, and gets enough initial discussion so that an addition to Boost's review queue of that library is made, that person must continually promote that library so that there is enough interest in Boost so that someone, anyone, is willing to be the review manager for that library. Why should this always be necessary in the face of the fact that very few of the people who contribute to Boost, via discussions on this mailing list and work on various libraries or work on other areas of the Boost infrastructure, are willing to be review managers ? Certainly this situation is not the library submitter's fault. BTW this situation, vis a vis being a review manager, is not in any way a criticism of all those people who contribute to Boost and neither have the time or inclination or interest to server as a review manager for a library in the review queue.
It is up to the library submitter to garner interest in their library. Do you think that all of the libraries in the queue have shown that there is ample community interest? -- Michael Caisse Ciere Consulting ciere.com