From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-28 23:57:48
Jeff Garland wrote:
> 1) The review schedule is too aggressive. One week per review with no breaks
> is going to kill us and not give enough time for complete reviews. 1.5 weeks
> with .5 weeks in-between is more doable. This also gives some buffer for
> review run-overs. The current week is a reasonable exception because we have
> 2 libraries that overlap the same area.
I'll second the idea that more time is not a bad thing. ;)
> 4) These periodic reports are great -- keep up the good work!
And I'll second this sentiment as well.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk