From: Jon Kalb (jonk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-28 17:38:48
>I've written a draft of a Boost Discussion policy.
>
>See
>http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/boost/more/discussion_policy.htm?rev=1.1&cvsroot=boost
>
>Comments?
>
>--Beman
Beman,
Your proposed policy is logical and lucid. My comment is about
discussion policy, but in a different vein.
I have seen requests made to divide the discussion list up by
library. The response has been that the "cross-pollination" effect of
engineers participating in discussions about libraries that are not
their primary interest is valuable. I suspect that this is true. But
I recognize that this list is an extremely high-volume list and this
is off-putting to many (or most) engineers.
I propose that rather than divide the list by library, that the list
be divided into a list for library developers and a list for (Boost)
library users. The advantage that I see is that a significant number
of engineers might be inclined to try out one or more Boost libraries
if the discussion list were less intimidating (in both volume and
technical detail).
The obvious disadvantage that I see is that some engineers that would
otherwise join and contribute to the "developer" list might only
subscribe to the "user" list. This disadvantage must be weighed
against the possibility of increased users for Boost libraries. Over
time, subscribers to the user list may migrate to the developer list
after developing a greater understanding of Boost and its purpose.
I'm not really certain what the mission of Boost is. If the mission
is just to have a place to develop quality libraries then expanding
the user base isn't really important. On the other hand if,
propagating the libraries is part of the mission, then I think some
thought should be given to the needs of engineers that might be
interested in using one or more Boost libraries, but only if a low
volume list is available (to help get started).
-- jonk