The proposed changes seem to ramble somewhat and parts are not normal policy so much as changes to affect the review queue as it exists.
My suggestion on the policy update: "Libraries may only be on the review queue (http://www.boost.org/ community/review_schedule.html) when they have garnered at least one public endorsement from a member of the Boost Community. The name(s) of the endorser(s) will be listed with the library on the review queue. "If a library gets only one endorsement, that endorser may not act as the library's review manager. Endorsers are expected to submit reviews when the library comes up for review (reviews can be submitted early, if necessary). "Library authors are encouraged to get endorsements by posting to the Boost Developer's mailing list, though other sources, such as The Boost Library Incubator (http://blincubator.com/), Reddit (reddit/r/cpp), etc., exist. On Mar 17, 2017 8:49 AM, "Niall Douglas" <nialldougla...@gmail.com> wrote: Can I ask the committee for thoughts upon and potential approval of the following new review queue entry policy: 1. All libraries in the review queue without managers attached are removed (including my own!) and the authors emailed to say the following new policy applies. The review queue is therefore emptied. 2. For a library to enter the review queue in future, it requires at least one (and preferably more) named members of the Boost community to publicly endorse the library to enter the review queue. Their names will be listed alongside the library in the review queue page athttp://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html under a new column "Seconded By". 3. Endorsing a library has NO RELATION to review managing a library. If only one person endorses a library for review, they are not permitted to act as review manager. It is expected that if you endorse a library to enter the review queue, you are highly likely to provide a review to a review manager at a later date, but this is not binding. 4. To find someone to endorse a new library for review, the library author ought to ideally canvas for a library's motivation before they ever begin writing or designing it, but failing that they need to approach boost-dev and publicise their library seeking people to publicly endorse it for review. Other forums work too e.g. reddit/r/cpp, the Incubator or anywhere else. 5. Any member on boost-dev can endorse a library for review. Unlike review managing, no prior conditions exist. As mentioned on the thread on boost-dev, this pushes the new library bottleneck up out of the review queue page so an ever growing list of libraries awaiting review doesn't appear on a public Boost webpage, where the current 23 libraries in the queue gives a bad impression of Boost (Michael pointed out, very validly, that one third of that queue is being processed, and we know some of the libraries in the queue are stale and their authors no longer wish to have a Boost review. Many of the remainder could never pass any Boost review due to being incomplete). It is particularly hoped that this new policy will help new library authors get some early feedback instead of submitting a library for review and getting nothing but silence for several years. Niall -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Boost Steering Committee" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to boost-steering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Boost Steering Committee" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to boost-steering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
