[boost] Tracking Review Requests and RM Applications

From: João Abecasis (jpabecasis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-14 23:15:30

Hi!

For those who missed it, I suggested on the "Languishing review 
requests" thread that we keep track of Review Requests and Applications 
for Review Managers in the ticketing system. The goal being to avoid the 
"silent rejection" problem.

A bonus side-effect is that each proposed library gets a unique place 
where it's progress along the Boost process can be tracked. Comments on 
library review requests would include links to relevant discussion on 
the list and rationale for decisions made. Each ticket would be closed 
upon final acceptance and merging of the code in the trunk, or rejection 
of the library.

Below I offer some suggestions on how this could work, just to get the 
discussion rolling.

* Ticket Type: we could use one or two more ticket types: (Library) 
Review Requests and a Review Manager Application. Perhaps a single 
generic "Review Request" would work just as well, to begin with.

We could also reuse one of the existing ticket types (e.g. Tasks?), but 
I think a clearer separation would work better.

* Reporter: The person submitting the review request or RM application

* Status: Assigned would be used when a Review Manager has been 
assigned. He is responsible for "closing" the review ticket.

* Owner: per above, this would be the Review Manager for a library 
submission and the Review Wizard for other types of requests.

* Milestone: Perhaps a bit far-fetched, but this could be used to follow 
the library library submission process 
(http://boost.org/more/submission_process.htm). This allows one to check 
at a glance libraries in each stage. It could also clutter the Roadmap 
page. None of these Milestone Steps would advance: tickets would 
progress from one to another.

* Version: Version of Boost with which the library was tested? Version 
for inclusion after acceptance?

* Component: "Boost Process"

And if you've got this far... Do you think this is a good idea in 
general? Do you think something like this adds more "process" with
no or little gain? Is it any friendlier to potential submitters? How 
about potential review managers? ...

All comments welcome.

Best regards,

João