Re: [boost] Re: [administrative] Formal Review Process

From: Thomas Wenisch (twenisch_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-27 01:20:33

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Thomas Witt wrote:

>
> 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.
>

This idea of seconding a review request is an extremely good idea.  It
adds formality to what is captured in the current process as "post to list
and see if there is interest".  The fact that someone seconds a review
request demonstrates that there is interest in the library, and that there
are people who are following the review list that might be inclined to
review.

I suggest that such a requirement be added to the formal review process,
with a specific (low, ie, 3) number of "formal seconds" required for a
formal review request in order for it to reach the schedule.  It should be
explicitly noted that "seconding" a review request does not imply a vote
to accept, nor a commitment on the part of the person seconding to
participate in the review. It just is an indication that a library is
interesting and worthy of review (and worthy of consuming time on the
schedule that could be used reviewing other libraries).

Comments?

-Tom Wenisch
Computer Architecture Lab
Carnegie Mellon University