2010/2/1 Patrick Horgan <phorgan1@gmail.com>:
Thomas Klimpel wrote:
It's not so easy. That they were rejected during a formal boost review doesn't necessarily mean that they are no longer associated with boost. The current agreement is to limit the number of different logos, especially no special logo for rejected libraries. I'm perfectly OK with this. The status of a library rejected during review is quite similar to the status of a library that is not yet proposed for review, so I think the same logo could be appropriate for both. A quite common case will also be that a rejected library is simply not touched again after it was rejected. So this could be also OK (="time freeze").
My 3 cents. If they have been rejected, but are still working to improve the proposal, then they are still proposed for. If they have abandoned the effort, either by abandoning the software completely, or by deciding to continue without the software outside of any association with boost, then they don't need a special icon for that state. They might be using boost, but are not in any other way associated with boost.
Why are you assuming that failing in a formal review implies abandoning association to boost. This can be an understandable reaction if grand and unrealistic expectations were held that did not meet reality. Other people may experience they learned a lot and have another try in a different library project. My idea to introduce a state "boost compliant" could be an acknowledgement of the simple truth, that the library, in the process to be prepared for formal review gained quality and implements all the conventions and properties that are necessary (but not necessarily sufficient) for a boost library to be accepted. Regards, Joachim