From: Thomas Witt (witt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-28 01:11:59
Powell, Gary wrote:
> ] 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.
> I also like the idea, but with a twist: it should be explicitly noted
> that seconding a review request _does_ imply a commitment to review the
> library should a review be scheduled for it.
> I agree with Dave and Doug, seconding implies both a commitment to review the library and a preliminary review such that you agree that the library is ready for review. The point being that you are expressing an interest in the library and that some sort of vetting has been done to insure that the rest of us won't all say, "Great but needs a heap of work." One can always post a "I'm thinking about getting my code ready is there enough interest to bother" email and gauge whether anyone cares. Those posting do not imply that you'll second it or approve it but that you think there's at least potential. Otherwise people won't waste their time reviewing, or documenting, or developing uninteresting stuff.
So do I.
> BTW, Go ahead and add me to the list of review managers. It seems like a long time since I've been asked, so I'm guessing I've dropped off the list.
Thanks Gary! Will do.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk