Re: [boost] Languishing review requests

From: Tom Brinkman (reportbase_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-06 20:13:02

>> Checks the submission to make sure it really is complete enough to warrant
>> formal review.

>>> Not really required. The reviewers will be quick to point that out.

This is a critical requirement.  If libraries that are not ready
are regularly put up for review, than potential reviewers will just
get frustrated with half completed libraries.  I have 5-6 half-completed
libraries myself that I could put up for review.

>> Finalizes the schedule with the Review Wizard and the submitter.

>>> Not required. The submitter can do that.

Another very important requirement.
A reliable scheduling mechanism is important to maintain the integrity of
the review process.  Just letting people schedule whatever they want
whenever they want would be very chaotic.

>> Posts a notice of the review schedule on the regular boost mailing list,
>> the boost-users mailing list, and the boost-announce mailing list.

>>> The submitter can do that.

No.  The submitter should not need to do that.

>> Inspects the Boost library catalogue for libraries which may interact with
>> the new submission.

>>> The submitter or the reviewers can do that.

Non-issue. Everyone can now give any input they wish as to potential
interactions that the proposed library has with existing libraries.

>> Urges people to do reviews if they aren't forthcoming.

>>>  The submitter has an incentive to do that. Lack of reviews leads to
autoreject.

No.  The number of reviews should have no bearing on the review managers
decision.  Some libraries have very limited use-cases, and are quite
obscure.  An experienced, knowlegable "review manager" will see through
the lack of reviews and still be able to make a decision as to whether
the boost would benefit from adding a given library.

>> Follows review discussions regarding the library, moderating or answering
>> questions as needed.

>>> Moderating rarely needed. Following/answering needs to be done by submitter.

I'm suprised you feel this way.  A moderater can be a huge benifit to the flow
of a discussion.

>> Asks the review wizard for permission to extend the review schedule if it
>> appears that too few reviews will be submitted during the review period.

>>> The review can take as long as necessary to gather a sufficient number of
>>> reviews. There is no need for a deadline. If we decide to keep the current
>> scheme, the submitter can ask for the extension.

In general, its up the review manager to deciede how long is needed.  The
ten day review period is just a rule of thumb.  The review manager, if
they choose,
can continue to lead a discussion and take reviews long after the
"initial" review period is over.  The larger, more complicated
libraries generally
have taken about 20 days to review, with about 10-20 days more for follow ups.

>>  Decides if there is consensus to accept the library, and if there are any
>> conditions attached.

>>> It is the responsibility of the submitter to prepare a summary of the
>>> reviews linking to them and to work with the reviewers to address their
>>> concerns. The summary is posted to the list and the moderators decide
>>> whether to accept the library.

The moderators are the most active contributers to the main-line code.
In my mind, they are certainly among the most talented programmers in
the world.
Their time is expensive.  They should not be asked to do even more.
Quite the opposite,
they should be asking us free-loaders to step up.

>> Posts a notice of the review results on the regular boost mailing list,
>> the boost-users mailing list, and the boost-announce mailing list.

>>> The moderators do that.

No.  The moderators should not be asked to do that.  Thats a task that
could easily fall to someone else