From: tom brinkman (reportbase_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-08 05:39:17
Jeff Garland wrote:
> Well, I don't see the 'slowness' as a problem. I think we have a problem
> because we have a backlog of submissions. There were some significant
> periods where reviews didn't keep up with the pace of submissions and now
> we have a bunch of catch-up to do.
Agreed. The slowness is as a result of the backlog, not the reviews
Keeping and maintaining an up-to-date schedule will help a great deal to
avoid this in the future.
> My only suggestion for shortening the formal review period would be to
> somehow encourage or develop reviews of libraries in advance -- thus
> reducing the amount of comment during the formal review. Anyone can go
> review boost::fsm, just to pick one, and go review the code and docs and
> post it to the list. The problem is, however, there is an additional
> dynamic during the formal
> review -- reviewers read other reviews and discuss them. Perhaps if there
> was a way of gathering review comments over a longer period (via wiki page
> or something) we could shorten this last phase.
Agreed. This would also be helpful.
>> I could accept review overlaps if it became the review managers job
>> to put together a group of people guaranteed to make a review. The
>> size of this group would depend on the library's size.
> I think this is very difficult to do practically...
Yes, difficult. But it is worth further consideration. I would be in favor
of this approach as a reasonable compromise.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk