From: Beth Jacobson (bethj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-06 20:05:32
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.
My (perhaps naive) impression is that while reviews need an expert
manager, much of the day-to-day work of managing a review (coordinating
with the review wizard and library author, posting announcements,
soliciting reviews, etc) doesn't require a great deal of expertise.
Perhaps in addition to a review manager, there could be a review
administrator, who would handle such tasks. The review manager would
still need to read the submitted reviews and follow discussions about
the library, but his/her actual work would be limited to giving advice
and expert opinions to the review administrator as needed, working with
the administrator on the results/TODO list, and acting as the final
authority in contentious cases.
Lightening the manager's workload might increase the pool of available
experts, while the administrator position would be a good way for
aspiring review managers to gain experience and prove their ability
handle such a job.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk