Re: [boost] Languishing review requests

From: more effective thinking in the exceptional C++ programming language (effective.thinking_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-13 12:04:22

I would like to give my testimonial on this point...

A few days ago I subscribed to this mailing list because I wanted to share
with the boost community the results of my experiments with the
random_on_sphere distribution. I uploaded a ready to read pdf file with the
method, the results and a proposal to modify the current implementation
(that is 20 times slower than it could be)...

I expected a quick decision since I took the pain to make everything clear
in the document. I did not understood anything to what happens here. I got
some feedback from users of the mailing list and that's it! Nobody took the
formal review in charge.

First: Why should I subscribe to a mailing list to submit a proposal?
Second Let's face it, there is very few users on this list in comparison to
the interested people in boost.
Third: People interested in boost do not have special interest to discuss on
a mailing list.

 I think that you should setup a review process similar to scientific
journal submissions. This mean:

step 1: submit your proposal of new library to the Chief Editor (Tom or
Ronald)
step 2: the Chief Editor quickly look if the contribution worth a review and
immediately feedback to the submitter
step 3: If accepted for review, the Chief Editor delegate to an Associate
Editor the managing of reviews
step 4: The Associate Editor know trusted reviewers and personally ask if
they want to review
step 5: Each reviewers gives back their comments
step 6: Based on the comments of the reviewers, the AE decide to accept,
reject or ask modifications and feedback the submitter immediately

Ok hope it helps... The current system with "Managers and Wizards" feel a
lot of amateurism... Things should be changed and the formal review system
of most scientific publications has proven to be efficient. It's easy to set
up while the editors have a list of trusted potential reviewers (and there
is hundreds of competent boost users around that could fulfil this).

The key point is that:
- The submitters and reviewers don't have to use the mailing list. (they
don't have time for this anyway)
- If the editor ask kindly for a review, chances are that the reviewer will
accept it.

Colas

On 6/13/07, João Abecasis <jpabecasis_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Peter Dimov wrote:
> > 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 think part of the "silent rejection" problem is the medium that is
> being used. In a mailing list it is just too easy to let a message slip
> by. Perhaps tracking review requests and RM applications in the
> ticketing system would help.
>
> Anyway, it's just an idea.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> João
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>