From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-06 19:17:40
Peter Dimov wrote:
> Eric Niebler wrote:
>> Peter Dimov wrote:
>>> Why do we need a review manager at all?
>> Primarily to avoid any questions or doubts about whether a library
>> should be accepted or not. The review manager supposedly takes
>> everybody's feedback into account, but makes the ultimate yes/no
>> decision, and is even free to buck popular opinion.
> Do so many of our reviews end in such a non-conclusive manner as to require
> a decision from a review manager?
It's irrelevant that it doesn't happen often. If it happens EVER and we
don't have one person designated to break the tie, there's the potential
for a nasty situation. And that one person has to be qualified for
his/her opinion to carry weight.
You might say, "Well, if it's so close a call, we should just reject the
library," but that doesn't help. It just moves the line. The question
then becomes "Was there enough debate to bring the result into
question?" If you don't have an adjudicator, you have no way to settle
-- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk