Boost logo

Boost :

From: John Phillips (phillips_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-07 10:01:49

Beth Jacobson wrote:
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:

   For me, the things you are listing as the administrator's job are a
very small part of the work. The real work is making sure I understand
the content of the review well enough to generate the recommendation and
todo list. Setting the schedule is a matter of a couple of emails.
Posting the announcement takes a couple of minutes, tops. On a big
review, with dissenting opinions, reading the content and checking for
the best available answers has taken me several hours. If I had to
coordinate that with an administrator to generate a joint report, I
would expect the time to increase markedly.

   I think looking for ways to encourage more new managers and provide a
training and proving ground for those who want to be managers is a good
thing. I just don't think this approach will work for that.


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