[boost] Re: [admin] Overlapping reviews -- should this beallowed?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-09 08:25:22

"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:

> "John Torjo" <john.lists_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:4140023B.2070608_at_torjo.com...
> | Thomas Wenisch wrote:
> | > On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, tom brinkman wrote:
> | >
> | >
> | >>With 10-15 days allocated per review and a 5-10 day buffer, we will be
> able
> | >>to review at-most 1 to 2 reviews per month or 12 to 24 libraries per year.
> | >
> | >
> | > A goal of 24 review per year strikes me as far too ambitious.  I think 12
> | > libraries is a more realistic goal (and allows for some dead time, such as
> | > right before a release, where no reviews are in progress).
> | >
> |
> | I second that. 12 reviews per year is quite enough.
>
> I would rather see a number that reflects how big the libraries are. Some are
> small, some are huge.

In the past we have always chosen the length of review period based on
the scope of the submission.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com