From: Manfred Doudar (manfred.doudar_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-25 21:39:00
Yep, I second that too - too little time to familiarize oneself with a
proposal, the work, and associated postings to contribute meanigfully within
the alloted timeframes.
Jody Hagins wrote:
>$0.02 on formal reviews, from someone who has been on the list for a
>little while, but has not contributed anything to the evolution of the
>The biggest obstacle for me in participating in the formal review
>process is time. I think the review timeframe is too small. I would
>much rather have two or three reviews overlap by a week or so, with each
>review having an extended time period. I doubt many of us have the time
>or expertise to participate in all reviews. However, there are
>occasions where we may have significant input.
>I believe I could have contributed in a non trivial manner to several
>reviews. However, by the time I see the announcement, download the
>materials, go through them, and try to keep up with the current
>comments, the review is over. I am so busy with work, family, coaching
>(American) football, and other activities, that the review periods
>usually seem too short (for me, at least).
>As a result, by the time I am ready to give input, the review is over.
>I do not care about the recognition aspect, as that would have no
>bearing on my contributions. For me, time is the critical component,
>and I just do not think the current timeframes are sufficient.
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk