Boost logo

Boost :

From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-27 08:18:58

On Tuesday 27 January 2004 01:20 am, Thomas Wenisch wrote:
> 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).

I too like the idea of seconding a formal review request, but I'd rather that
"seconding" imply that someone has looked over the library and found that it
is in reasonably good shape for a formal review. Otherwise, we'll still have
the problem Thomas W. is describing where a formal review is requested,
several people "second" because they are interested, but the formal review
won't happen because the library isn't ready.


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