Boost logo

Boost :

From: Thomas Witt (witt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-27 01:10:23


Jeff Garland wrote:

> I don't like the idea of a mailing list to solve this problem.

Why? Really I just want to know.

> Remember, the
> root cause of the issue is that the review manager is too busy to read the
> development list and keep up with his duties. I also don't think a new tag is
> going to do much given that the review process currently states:
> ...the author sends a message requesting a formal review
> to the mailing list. Please use a subject in the form
> "Review Request: library"...
> which means that a filter on review request should be enough to filter things
> down.

There is more to the filtering than meets the eye. The usual process up
to know was that somebody posted a request. That request usually lead to
some discussion. As a result in quite a few cases the library author
decided to tackle the issues before the request. I've been following
these discussions in order to see whether the request is likely to be
withdrawn or not. The net effect of all this a lot of postings use
review in the subject line and are neither requests nor formal review
related. I am not criticising poeple for doing this I just try to
present the current situation.

Another issue that is related to this problem is that we are already
close to having more review requests than we can handle. (I am not
talking about the wizard here, just the list and the reviewers). In the
past we already had reviews where there was very little feedback.

In my opinion we need some kind of staging in order to streamline the
influx of libraries in the formal review process and to improve the
quality of reviewed libraries. Thus making failure for trivial reasons
more unlikely.

I think the idea of a separate mailing list fits into this staging
strategy. I.e. the review list would be reserved for review and review
only. One idea might be to require a pre review on the developers list
or required 2-5 people to second the review request.

> I think some simple additions to the submission process would solve the
> 'heads-up' to the review manager problem:
> A copy of the Review Request posting should be sent directly to
> the review wizard (email here). If the review wizard does not
> respond with an acknowledgement within 48 hours another request
> should be made.

As explained not every request leads to a review.

> Also, note that the entire discussion of the Review Wizard is on the Formal
> Review Process page and I personally think most that section would be better
> on the submission process page making it clearer that the review wizard will
> schedule the review.

I would really appreciate it if you could make that change.

> Finally, it seems to me the real solution is to either split the duties or
> find another review wizard volunteer.

As of now I don't have a good idea how things can be split up.

> I'm willing to spend a couple hours a
> month on this if it would help, so Thomas send me an email off-list if you
> have something you want to offload on me.

Thanks Jeff! I'll shoot you an email as soon as I see clearer.

> Also, I don't read every email on
> the dev list, but I could certainly make sure that if new review requests are
> posted the author gets a prompt answer....


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at