I am pleased to formally announce that the Typeof library has been
accepted into
Boost.
Congratulations Arkadiy and Peder.
There were 3 reviews, all in favour of accepting the library.
While I'm not questioning the value of accepting this library specifically, doesn't it seem less than ideal to accept a library that -- for whatever reasons -- garnered only three reviews?
Yes.
While the library was truly peer reviewed, and the reviews were by knowledgeable folk, the base of input is narrow as a result. Should this be the norm?
No. Not sure what we can do about it. I think the review wizard should weigh in here.
Three positive reviews is not sufficient in my opinion. However, the precedent has already be set, as other libraries have been approved on a similar limited number of reviews. I'm sure most would agree that the review situation is not ideal and could be improved. However, it has worked to some extent and the boost c++ libraries, are arguably among the best available. One easy improvement would be to require that each approved library be endorsed/sponsered by a least one prominent boost member, such as Dave Abrahms, Jeff Garland or Thorsten Ottosen. Another easy improvement would be to add accepted libraries under a probation or beta period of say six months. The library would remain beta until its stable enough and has additional time for more user scrutiny. A prominent boost member would make the judgement about when to remove the library from its beta period. During the beta period, the library author would be asked to complete the libraries documentation, examples and requested changes from the additional user scrutiny. If there are no objections, I will start requesting that libraries under review be sponsered by at least prominent boost member. This would ensure that accepted libraries meet the approval of a least one prominent boost member. Review Wizard, Tom Brinkiman