[boost] Languishing review requests

From: Tom Brinkman (reportbase_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-05 21:20:15

Thanks John for starting this thread.  Our preference has always been
to assign the "Review Manager" role to those that have already
submitted a library, or at-least an active contributer to boost in
some capacity.

If no one with this background volunteers, and the proposed library
has had sufficient time on the list, we would make the "Review
Manager" role available to others.  Typically, we would do a search on
the mailing list to get a feel for how actively the volunteer has
participated in some previous discussions.  Often, we will read their
comments and make an assessment if they would be a good match for a
given library.  We have tried to set the "bar" pretty high.

It should also be stated that the library author has the
responsibility to generate interest in his library.  Just having the
library added to the "Review Queue" is not enough.  He must regularly
post comments to this list about issues that are relevant to his
library and of interest to boost developers.  He should attempt to
create a small community of people that have an interest in having the
library added.  He must be an advocate for his  library and tell "us"
why it would be a good addition.  Successfully submitting a library to
boost can be a career changing accomplishment for some.

If a library has been on the queue for over six months, and no one has
steped up to volunteer to be the "review-manager", there could be a
problem with the library and it may not ready for review.  Every
situation is different.  We have no difficulty finding "qualified"
review managers for the larger high-profile libraries.  However, its
the smaller, obscure libraries, that dont have an obvious use-case
that have troubles.  A little bit of "salesmanship" by the authors of
the smaller libraries is often all that is needed to get other
developers to take a look at it. Also, many of us like to read
discussion threads about the proposed libraries well in advance of the
actual review.  As far as I can tell, very little of this has been
done for the libraries that are currently languashing in the "review
queue".

In the case of John Phillips, even though he hasn't sumbitted a
library; (if I recall correctly), he is a Professor of Mathmatics and
has contributed regularly to many discussion on various topics on the
boost mailing list.  His reviews have always been among the most
thoughtful and relevant.  We could only hope that all "reviews" are
handeled as well his.  We are fortunate that he has also voluntered to
be the "Review Manager" for the upcoming "review" of Eric Neibler's
"Time-series" library.

We have had many discussions behind the scenes about how to improve
the review process.  Hopefully, this thread will start another such
discussion.