On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 7:54:44 PM UTC, Michael Caisse wrote: > > Rob - I think your updates look good. There has been a good discussion on > the ML. >
There has. I was surprised a consensus on a specific change emerged. My thanks to the steering committee members who added valuably to the discussion. > Nial - Do you think your current version reflects all of the ML input? > Thank you for driving this. > In the sense that nobody has objected to the current version as currently written, then yes. Lack of objection is probably agreement that the proposed text isn't terrible. Ronald came in with quite detailed feedback on the first draft and I adjusted the text to match his comments, he has not come back on the changes, so I guess he doesn't hate the current version. There have been a number of statements wanting more change to the process, but there is not consensus on that, people want different things in different forms. I do feel some concern that after this change that there could be a highly dispiriting outcome where library authors ask repeatedly for endorsements for review, but everybody ignores their request rather than saying what is wrong with their submission. I could see this happening with extremely niche but very nicely made libraries for example. But we'll cross that bridge if it occurs, best not to worry about ifs until they happen. 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 [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
