Boost logo

Boost :

From: Thomas Witt (witt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-25 14:55:49


Brian McNamara wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 06:31:56PM -0800, Thomas Witt wrote:
>>* The author posts a prereview request to the list. Subject line must
>> contain "[prereview request]".
>>* The author posts review request to review wizard. Subject line must
>> contain "[review request]" and the message should contain a link to
>> the prereview request.
>> The review request must be seconded by two boost members. To second a
>> review request does not imply a positive review. A person who
>> seconded a review request can act as a review manager. If nobody has
>> volunteered so far the review wizard helps finding a review manager.
> I don't quite understand these two steps. What is the purpose of the
> "prereview request"? Just to obtain "seconds" (and possibly people
> willing to be managers)? I think so, but I'm not clear on the intent.

Currently when a review request is made it results in a lot of comments
on the lib. Sometimes the request is the first time boosters will be
made aware of the lib. Depending on the comments authors sometimes
want/need to go back to the drawingboard.

The outlined two step process is just an attempt to formalize what's
already happening.

> I'm also not sure what you mean by "a link the to prereview request".
> If I understand the intent of the "prereview request", then perhaps what
> the wizard really wants is just a list of people/email-addresses who
> seconded.

I want to know that the list knows of the lib and that there are people
who think it's ready/worth reviewing. The first issues is covered by the
link (I will not always be able to monitor the list) the second by the
list of people who second.

The more general idea is that we have a lot to review and I want only
those libs to go to review who are ready. Another thing connected to
this goal is that the scheduling does not happen before the review
manager says he is ready to go.

>>* The review manager checks whether the library is suitable and ready
>> for review.
>>* The review manager sends a schedule request to the review wizard. The
>> subject line must contain "[schedule request]".
>>* The review wizard schedules the review. Reviews will be scheduled on a
>> first come first serve basis, based on the schedule request.
> I think this step (scheduling) needs to be more "interactive". The
> review manager needs a say in the scheduling too, as well as the author.
> (No sense having a review during a time when one of these parties is
> absent.) I guess the point is that the review wizard is just keeping
> up the FCFS order, so he says "we have other reviews going until May3,
> so find an agreeable time after that" and then the manager/author agree
> on a time and report back to the wizard to get it officially on the
> schedule.

Agreed. That's what was meant by "The review wizard schedules the
review" I was just to lazy to provide more detail.


Boost Review Wizard

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