Re: [boost] Languishing review requests

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-07 00:28:42

Eric Niebler wrote:
> Peter Dimov wrote:
>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>> on Tue Jun 05 2007, Jody Hagins <jody-boost-011304-AT-atdesk.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The review manager does have a fair amount of authority, especially
>>>> in reviews which are not clear cut one way or another.  So, it
>>>> can't just be given to anyone who asks... though maybe there
>>>> should be some explanation given to those who are not picked, and
>>>> maybe some kind of "training roadmap" provided for those
>>>> interested.
>>> Great ideas.
>>
>> It might be time to rethink this part of the Boost process as well.
>> I'll start with one seemingly simple question:
>>
>> 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. It's a
> representative democracy, twice removed: we elect the review wizard,
> who elects the review managers, who elect the libraries. Which would
> make the review managers the electoral college. ;-)

Actually, I liken the process to more like that of a judge (review manager)
deciding a law suit.  Advocates for both sides present their cases,
arguments, counter arguments etc.  When the smoke clears, the
judge renders his decision.  In cases concerning law, he includes
a legal opinion.  The reviewer is a mostly disinterested party charged
with application of the previously established rules.  None of the
advocates can play that role with a conflict of interest.

> Another key job of the review manager is to collect all the feedback
> and present a TODO list to the author of the new Boost library, but
> that's secondary.

Hmm - like a judge passing a "probationary sentence" subject to conditions
such as enter rehab.  To make the analogy complete, a conditionally
accepted library shouldn't be checked until the review manager OK's it.

FWIW - I think the boost review process - including the desiganation
on one specific person to be responsabe for the decision is a masterful
accomplishment.  It is:

a) totally devoid of any pretense to being a democratic process.  Votes
don't count.  Argument/Rationale do.  Imagine if our court decisions were
decided by voting.

b) avoids compromise for compromise sake - this helps promote
conceptual integrity in libraries.

If there is anything sacred in boost - this has to be it.

Robert Ramey