Niall Douglas wrote:
try https://boost-website.nedprod.com/development/submissions.html again.
This looks good to me. The new procedure makes sense. I only have one small nit to pick: "Be prepared to pivot your design" Can we please not pivot? Pivoting is awful. :-)
And Peter, note the seconders needed is one person now.
Noted, thanks. Two was a bit steep. This is off-topic, but I'd really appreciate if the page linked in "Some best practices ideas with samples of script and code and links into source code in existing Boost libraries can be found on the Boost wiki." be reworked, made up to date, with the controversial/niche recommendations removed. It'd be nice if it reflected practices that are unequivocally endorsed by Boost. Back on topic, I think that the current process of getting a library into the review queue is a bit outdated. I suggest we make use of existing infrastructure and make a Github repository "review" owned by the Review Wizard in which submissions occur by way of the endorsing Boost member creating an issue with the description of the library. Discussion about the library, as it pertains to the review process, can then happen inside this issue; review managers, when found, and scheduled review dates can also be posted there, so as the progress of a library towards a review can be conveniently tracked by people with an interest in the matter. The README.md file of this repo can be the current review queue.