From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-08 19:47:17
At 04:52 PM 7/8/2002, Thomas Witt wrote:
>> Online voting for boost members for library acceptance.
>I am very sceptic regarding this one. Strictly speaking the review
>non democratic, and I think that is good. It is the decision of the
>manager whether a library is accepted. He makes this decision based on
>own evaluation and the input he got from the review comments made by
>To me the actual comments made by the reviewers are more important than
>An online voting system as I see it would push the process more towards
>vote counting and to me this is not desireable.
I agree strongly with Thomas on this - the whole point of peer review is
quality, not quantity.
A Review Manager can and should give maximum weight to a thoughtful review
from someone who has carefully studied a library. And give little weight
to someone who has apparently not done any homework at all!
That's not to say we can't improve the review process further, but voting
isn't the way to do it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk