From: Thomas Witt (witt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-08 15:52:00
Thanks for the input. I agree that there is some potential for process
improvements. Though I think we should be very carefull about increasing the
workload on any participant of the review process. That's the reason why I
sometimes may seem to be unwilliing to change something.
On Monday 01 July 2002 21:14, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> I would like to discuss the possibility to enhance review process a bit. I
> propose to add a section into boost web site dedicated to library currently
> under review. I should contain:
> Name of the library
> Authors (with email)
> Moderator (with e-mail)
> Reference to latest state of the library
> Reference to online docs (if available)
IIRC this was asked for several times in the past. And yes I think it is a
good idea. What about the following. We require that each author that asks
for review to set up such a page on the wiki. We can then have a link from
the review schedule to the wiki page. This way we do not complicate boost
website administration and still have a central place to look for this kind
What do you think?
> This would be the first step.
> Next we could add:
> Forum for outstanding issues open during review with there
> resolution/response from authors.
Currently I think this is more like a nice to have than a must have.
Furthermore in order to work frequent updates are essential so the wiki might
be a good place for this. Though using the wiki might draw the discussion
form the list towards the wiki. I would like the discussion to stay on the
list. Just my 2c.
> Online voting for boost members for library acceptance.
I am very sceptic regarding this one. Strictly speaking the review process is
non democratic, and I think that is good. It is the decision of the review
manager whether a library is accepted. He makes this decision based on his
own evaluation and the input he got from the review comments made by others.
To me the actual comments made by the reviewers are more important than their
An online voting system as I see it would push the process more towards vote
counting and to me this is not desireable.
> This may simplify issues tracking for authors and allows eliminate
> repetitions from somebody entered review in the middle.
> There could be something else that I missing.
To me the most pressing problem is post review management. Think of a list of
libraries accepted but not in CVS and so on.
-- Dipl.-Ing. Thomas Witt Institut fuer Verkehrswesen, Eisenbahnbau und -betrieb, Universitaet Hannover voice: +49(0) 511 762 - 4273, fax: +49(0) 511 762-3001 http://www.ive.uni-hannover.de
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk