From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-06 19:31:54
Eric Niebler wrote:
> 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.
It is not irrelevant at all. If disputes only occur one time in a hundred,
there is no need to recruit 100 volunteer review managers just because one
of them might need to break a tie. We can just say "Eric Niebler breaks ties
if they occur" and carry on.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk