Dear Boost, I see that new candidate Boost libraries entering the review queue have exploded in recent years, with no less than *twenty-three* proposed libraries awaiting a review. As the ongoing strength and vitality of Boost is inextricably linked to new growth, I think that waiting around for years for someone to volunteer to manage a review is not healthy. If a library author has invested the very significant effort to develop a Boost-quality library, the least Boost can do is to try harder to provide timely reviews and that means persuading more people to volunteer to manage reviews. In the past people have argued that for every library you submit for review, you should manage a review in return. Myself, Antony and a few others have adhered to that rule, and if every library author did so there would be no outstanding review queue. However there are problems in that in itself in terms of moral hazard, and also because the review manager needs to usually be fairly expert in a library being reviewed, else it can be very hard to judge the worth and validity of reviews. A shortage of suitably expert review managers will always be a problem for some types of library. I therefore ask boost-dev what to do? Some options: 1. Pay US$1000 (one thousand) dollars to each person who manages a review. In case you're worried Boost doesn't have the money, it does in spades, that's not a problem. For $23,000 we could clear the current review queue assuming none of the problems mentioned yet. 2. Pay US$1000 dollars to the manager and 2x $500 dollar payments to those writing the top two most useful reviews as judged by the review manager. That makes the cost $2000 per library accepted or rejected, or $46,000 to clear the current review queue. 3. In my own opinion from reviewing the review queue, a good 25% of the libraries in the queue are not ready for review due to obvious glaring deficiencies in the documentation or code. Spending a grand on those libraries which will very obviously be rejected isn't worth the money. What should we do about those? One approach could simply be to trust review managers to not abuse the thousand dollar fee. Another could be that before each new review, the prospective manager needs to write a single line comment on why they did not choose the other libraries in the queue and publish that here before starting a review. That would quickly identify those libraries in the queue which a majority of managers think have serious problems and could never pass any review. If say a library in a queue accumulates three single line black marks, the author might be encouraged to withdraw it. 4. Finally there is the problem of libraries of high quality, but not a good fit for Boost because they are so esoteric and niche that nobody could provide a useful review, and without useful reviews the review manager can't really recommend acceptance. This will be an increasing problem with time anyway as more of the low hanging C++ library fruit is picked, but I suppose one could just kick that decision can down the road and see if 2x $500 payments might help scare up more high quality reviews. 5. We could try guilting more people into review managing, and redouble banging the drum to scare up more volunteers. I look forward to seeing what people think. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/