From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-07 11:42:54
John Phillips wrote:
> Peter Dimov wrote:
>> I agree that it could be incredibly hard for a submitter to prepare
>> an impartial summary of the opinions of the reviewers and that not
>> will want to do so.
>> That said, if a submitter is willing and able to go through this
>> experience, we might consider granting him/her the opportunity if a
>> review manager
>> hasn't turned up for, say, three months.
> This strikes me as one of those jobs where the people who would want
> it might include some of the people you would least want to give it
> The general high level of the conversations and professional
> responsibility on the boost developer list is a credit to the group.
> However, even here there have been cases of someone claiming to be
> reasonable and objective while actually being neither.
The potential for abuse is not lost on me. However, the fact that the system
can be abused does not necessarily mean that it will be abused in practice.
If this happens, we can just go back to the traditional approach and we'll
be no worse off, or we can try a hybrid approach allowing more people to
qualify for the RM role.
It would be nice if we could devise a system that does not suffer from the
"silent rejection" problem: you input a review request (or a RM application)
into it and receive no output back for months (or at all).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk