From: John Femiani (JOHN.FEMIANI_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-05 13:06:31
> .... I'm going to spend my entire summer working
> on may never get a chance to make it into Boost! And apparently this
> is not a concern that is unique to me
Is the lack of a manager a sign of a lack of interest?
Should managing a review be a prerequisite for having your own library
reviewed? (boost credit ?)
> It looks to me like the "trainee review managers" idea is similar to
> the current practice, as per the following page:
> It looks like the bar for being a review manager is fairly low so long
> as you are knowledgeable in the field. All of the steps in the duties
> of the review manager seem simple and straightforward (just time
> consuming!). The "Review Wizards" appear like they are in place to
> help out the managers with questions about process, etc.
I think time consuming would be a big issue, and maybe the way to gauge
interest in a project (prior to putting it on the queue) should be based
on people indicating whether they would be willing to review or manage
the actual submission if asked.
Perhaps there should be more structure recommended for the "Interest in
a ....." emails, they should ask specific questions on level of
interest, such as
"Interest in a XXXX:
I am writing a class Widget with code in the vault at http://XXXXX.
Yada yada yada....
Is this project of interest to the boost community?
Would you review this project during formal review?
Would you be willing to manage a review for this project?
This approach is kind of actively soliciting people to volunteer to
manage the review if they are actually interested in the project.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk