Tom Brinkman wrote:
I think asking that review requests be made through the svn's ticket system could work nicely. As far as your other ideas, that might be changing things too much for now. We are all just staring to learn SVN, so if you are interested, you could become our boost SVN ticketing expert and lead the way. Contact me offline and we'll discuss further. If we come up with something concrete, I'll propose the changes to the moderators, who have the final say about any changes to the review process.
Just to clarify... the ticketing system João is referring to is the Boost Trac, at svn.boost.org. While it is hosted at the same place as the Subversion repository, and the two tools can work together, the Trac is a separate entity that deals primarily with developer-centric documentation (through its Wiki) and managing bug reports through its ticket system.
The "proposed" library author needs to generate some "buzz" to get the extremely busy developers on the boost mailing list interested in taking a look. Its not an easy process to be shur, but it has worked well for most authors. The proposed library authors need to become an active poster to the boost mailing list and create threads that are of interest and related to his library. The libraries that have "languashed" are relatively unknown. Those library author needs to take responsiblity for generating some interest in their library. Regularly posting to the boost mailing list usually does the trick. Keep trying is all that I can say.
As far as recruiting qualified review managers, that has been and will always be a problem.
Agreed. A library submission should not enter the ticket system until it's gone through preliminary submissions, has sufficient interest, etc. - Doug