Boost logo

Boost :

From: John Phillips (phillips_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-07 09:55:52

Peter Dimov wrote:
> The idea is that the knowledge needs to come from the reviewers, not from
> the tie-breaker person. Anybody qualified and willing to act as a review
> manager will obviously be qualified and willing to write a review, but the
> converse is - as we are observing - not necessarily true. If the review
> process does not produce a sufficiently solid case for acceptance, the
> library is rejected. It is the responsibility of the submitter to present
> his/her case citing reviews as supporting material such that the busy
> tie-breaker person/group is able to make a quick decision.
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:

   Who checks to see if the submitter is presenting a fair picture of
the review? If it is no one, then there is the chance (hopefully rare)
that the submitter will present a skewed version of what happened in the
review. If it is one person, that person is the de-facto review manager,
since that person has the single largest responsibility of the review
manager (checking all the reviews and determining the best available
recommendation). If it is the whole tie-breaker group, then there are
many people doing the work that used to be done by one. If it is
supposed to come from the participants, then the discussion of the
submitter's version of the review becomes another review and little is
gained (if anything).

   To me, the biggest responsibility of the review manager is to be
someone who understands the domain but has no personal stake in whether
the library passes or fails. That gives as good a chance at an objective
  and complete final report as is possible, while only taking up one
person's time.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at