Thomas Klimpel said:
I don't know whether I understand your concerns. I'm just not sure that it will be easy to agree on a set of core libraries. If it were just the official boost libraries themselves, it would at least be easy to figure out which library must necessarily be considered as "core". But you will never know exactly which boost libraries are used by closely boost related projects, like the libraries in the sandbox. For them, the official release boost libraries present the "core" libraries, and the other sandbox libraries are the experimental ones (and as Glas shows, it is quite possible that there is even a dependence to another experimental library).
My major concern is about how to encourage continued innovation. Having potential libraries languish in the review queue for many many months, in some cases, years, can't be a good thing for getting people to want participate in boost. Think about all the people behind the scenes that see the review queue and say, why bother, its too cumbersome. There are alot of good ideas out there, but they need a place to get some exposure, and to flush them out. Debian has demonstrated that a stable and a non-stable branch can be quite successful. Boost should adopt a similar approach.