From: Pavel Vozenilek (pavel_vozenilek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-31 17:30:58
"Rob Stewart" wrote:
>> There were 3 reviews, all in favour of accepting the library.
> While I'm not questioning the value of accepting this library
> specifically, doesn't it seem less than ideal to accept a library
> that -- for whatever reasons -- garnered only three reviews?
> While the library was truly peer reviewed, and the reviews were
> by knowledgeable folk, the base of input is narrow as a result.
> Should this be the norm?
Low number of reviewers is nothing unusual - I have seen
it in previous reviews. What helped to attract more people
was extended review period (in case of FSM/Statecharts).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk