From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-07 09:07:41
David Abrahams wrote:
> IMO, aside from not having enough volunteers at the moment, a
> condition I believe we can fix in any number of ways, the review
> manager role, and reviews in general, are a part of the Boost process
> that I think really works and doesn't need fixing.
Absolutely. My proposed alternative cannot be claimed to be better than the
current scheme if experienced and knowledgeable volunteers are available to
serve as review managers. It has been conceived with the initial assumption
that they aren't.
Not having enough RM volunteers has been a persistent problem for years now.
> FWIW, I have to admit that, although I think it's good to re-examine
> everything we do from time to time, I am a bit uncomfortable with
> re-examining everything we do from the ground up all at once, which
> seems to be the direction in which we're now headed.
Coincidence. In addition, re-examination does not imply change. It only
implies impartial reflection and critical thinking. It's OK to shoot down in
flames a proposed change and reaffirm that the current process should stay.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk