[boost] Re: [administrative] Formal Review Process

From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-27 02:37:05

"Thomas Wenisch" <twenisch_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.53L-ECE.CMU.EDU.0401270114300.4085_at_dalmore.ece.cmu.edu...
> [...]
> 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 second the proposal to require a second to review requests. ;)
At this point, I will also throw out an idea without volunteering to
implement it, unless other people think it is a good idea but are
even more busy or lazy than me.  I like the idea of automation,
and perhaps this might work.  We could create a review request
web page where a potential author submits his library info.  Then,
a summary is posted by a script to the dev list, so people can see
that a library review has been requested.  Others can then go look
at the submission, and vote to have the library reviewed.  Once
the library reaches the threshold for seconding, a notice is sent
to the Review Wizard.  Review requests would automatically
expire after, say, 4 weeks.  This could help Thomas filter out the
tentative requests that don't pan out, and focus on the ones that
really need to get scheduled.

As much as I hate to say it, I also agree with Dave's idea of
requiring people submitting libraries to act as review managers.
On the one hand, it seems a little draconian.  On the other, it
seems like the only reasonable way to increase the review manager
pool.  So, when an author submits a review request, he/she is
added to the reviewer pool.  Thomas could then look at the pool
and send certain reviewers a request to manage a review, or
another script could automatically spam all the review managers,
and hope that one of them volunteers.  Then Thomas could
coordinate the ones that are willing and able manually.

Finally, in order to address the problem of a library not getting
enough reviewers, perhaps we could also require that a minimum
number of people promise to review a library before it is scheduled
for review.  That could also be a bit draconian, but I can't imagine
that peer-reviewed journals just let papers through on the review
of one or two people because there weren't enough others to look
at it (but I've never been inside the peer-review process for a
journal, so maybe I have a naive view).  To help ensure a pool of
reviewers, we could also add a review requirement for library
submissions in addition to the review manager requirement.  It's
like the selective service for Boost!

Dave

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 1/13/2004