I guess I'm confused. My understanding is that libraries are considered good candidates for the Boost collection based on meeting some or all of certain criteria: * They offer useful, novel functionality not found elsewhere * The API is superior to other libraries that do similar things * The implementation is exceptionally performant * Solving a familiar problem in a particularly elegant fashion * The library is already popular and has field experience * The library offers C++ standard functionality for older compilers But some of the chatter on the mailing list suggests that the bar for a Boost library candidate is lower. That a library just needs to basically work, even if it duplicates functionality found elsewhere, or even if it does not have anything that one might hold up as an example of exceptional engineering. Boost libraries used to be cutting edge, to such an extent that they were adopted into the C++ Standard. And now the progress is in reverse. The Standard introduces a new component, and the Boost library follows (Boost.Charconv for example). In other cases I see libraries with few to no users limping into reviews, or absent discussions which question whether or not the bar for excellence is exceeded. When I used to participate in wg21 I complained about the "direct to standard" pipeline, where people would just write papers for the sake of it with no example code or real-world user experience. I have to wonder if we are not cultivating a "direct to Boost" pipeline by having relaxed or poorly-defined acceptance criteria. There are thousands of open-source libraries for doing things in a fashion that is "good enough." If libraries are not held to technical excellence and high standards during the review process then what is the value proposition of the collection? If libraries of average design and implementation are seen as passable for acceptance then how would this inspire any authors to strive for excellence? When I write a library there are always two factors in my mind: 1. that the use-case is compelling, and 2. that I can bring something to the table which demonstrates technical excellence. These are the libraries that I have contributed thus far and my process for designing them: 1. Boost.Beast This offers something never seen before which is a generic approach to HTTP and Websocket, based on Asio, which offers models and algorithms that are designed well (of course, it still has its flaws). The library already had many users ahead of the review, and was being used to transact economic value in a live product. I will note that my initial motivation for Beast was because the websocketpp library API was just terrible, and the alternatives even worse. 2. Boost.JSON When I needed JSON I looked at the alternatives and while RapidJSON was clearly the best in terms of performance I felt that it made several major design flaws in its API. Boost.JSON pretty much copies all of the good ideas from RapidJSON especially the performant implementation, and offers a redesigned API that follows C++ best practices with respect to copy and move, exceptions, and error codes. Furthermore I added the streaming parser and I introduced a novel means of managing memory resources which I believe corrects a design flaw in the standard. This library already had commercial users and lots of feedback before going into review. 3. Boost.URL Beast users regularly asked for URL parsing. There are some regex patterns floating around and some Spirit based parsers, and also some URL libraries that do the "five std::string data members" thing. I wanted something excellent, but the first two iterations of an API turned out to be crap and I gave up, as I do not like publishing mediocre libraries. Some time passed and with renewed energy I tried again and then I got it right. The URL is stored in its serialized form (just one string), allowing the possibility for having a url_view type in addition to the mutable container. I copied much of the API from a popular JS URL lib because, well hey why duplicate the effort if someone has already gone through the trouble :) Boost.URL offers particularly clean and robust interfaces for reading and modifying the values of each part of the URL both with and without the URL-encoding applied. The mechanism for lazily iterating the path and query sequences is novel. And it offers a strong invariant: the container will always contain a valid URL. The library further innovates by making public its parsing framework which is optimized for the type of grammars found in the Internet RFCs such as HTTP and the fields used in Websocket handshakes. Boost.URL had a bunch of users before the review was conducted. 4. Boost.StaticString This one is just a straightforward string container whose storage is fixed in capacity as a data member. Container libraries are often unexciting but they are necessary. StaticString follows all best practices for modern C++ containers. When I look at a proposed library I try to figure out what is great about it, how well it performs for its users (or even, does it have any users?), what part of the API is exceptionally well designed and ergonomic, but most importantly I want to ask: what makes this library stand out to the extent that it should be part of the library collection? What aspects of the library, if viewed by someone learning C++ or interested in improving their design skills, are inspirational? Is this overly demanding or exclusionary? Am I overthinking things? Should we be asking more of these types of questions and requiring better answers? What is the criteria for determining if a library is good enough to become part of the collection? Thanks