From: Jake Voytko (jakevoytko_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-07 12:04:50
On 6/7/07, Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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.
There are different forms of abuse other than direct manipulation of
results. After working on these libraries, sometimes for months, I
think you're going to find that even people who are striving to be as
fair as they can about the negative reviews are going to try to
present the negatives in a way so as to minimize impact. Developers
are emotionally attached to projects that they spend a significant
amount of time on.. they want to see them do well, and the developers
want to be recognized positively for their work. It doesn't do the
Boost users any good by allowing any kind of potential bias in the
review results, and in fact could harm them in some cases by allowing
inferior results slip through.
> 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).
I absolutely agree. I feel that rapid feedback would be a necessary
part of a solution. It would make potential helpers know what they can
do while they are still in a helpful mood, rather than waiting until
they have shifted their focus onto different projects and communities.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk