On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> wrote:
When a potential library submitter evaluates Boost policies, those policies may be considered too onerous or not. If the former, Boost might be denied a useful library, but the denial wasn't unfair. All submitters face the same policies and choose whether to accept them. Whether a policy is well or ill conceived can be determined more objectively than can its fairness.
There could be a required evaluation step after the usual review to provide final acceptance. That would make it easier to accept warnings in a library under review. If the author does not meet the (not yet) established warnings policy after a tentative review acceptance but before final acceptance, then it would be rejected. I assume that such a two-stage review process would be fairer in your mind?
I don't think another review is necessary. What if it was the same review process, but to be allowed to merge to a release branch you have to meet the new stricter guidelines? That seems like a good compromise. --Michael Fawcett