Re: [boost] GIL Review

From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-26 03:57:46

Tom Brinkman wrote:
>>> I move to remove private reviews from the review process.
> 
> It seems to me that we should foster an discussion environment of topics
> that are of interest and relevence to boost developers.  Removing that item
> does not seem like that big of a deal to me.
> 
> However, the large issue is that we give "a lot" of power to the "review
> manager".  What their justifcation is for approving or not approving a
> library is not always clear.  They may have been greatly influenced by
> private discussons that did not occur in the mailing list.  In my case, when
> I have been the "review manager" for a library, I have at least 30-40 emails
> between the developer and myself and others that are not posted to the
> group.  Most of them are inconsequential, but a few might have been
> interesting to others -   who knows exactly.    Ultmiately, we have to trust
> the judgement of those that volunteer and accept the responsiblity of being
> a "review manager".  Hopefully, they take this role seriously and make a
> decision that is in the best interest of "boost".  I'll do my part and try
> to reqruit the best possible "review managers" volunteers.
> 
> If the boost moderaters are in agreement, I'll talk to "Ronald Garcia" and
> have him make this change.

Let me be clear: I am not against private conversations per se. What I
don't particularly like are private reviews. I am not sure if anything
like this has happened in the past and no one, I guess, except the
review managers, will ever know. I find private reviews unfair to the
library author who took the time to craft his library, join the
mailing list, ask for interest, answer all the discussions, ask
for a review and got grilled in the process. While without him knowing
it, additional grilling is happening in the background. The point is
that the library author should at least be given the chance to defend
his library. If we require library authors to join the mailing list,
I don't see any reason why we shouldn't require reviewers to do the
same. That's the very least they could (and *should*) do.

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net