From: Ronald Garcia (garcia_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-16 11:43:44
On Nov 16, 2007, at 9:39 AM, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> Ronald Garcia skrev:
>> We need experienced review managers.
> I don't mind taken one of the libs shown. Any will do.
> But it does seem like the problem is not missing review managers, but
> rather that we aren't doing any reviews.
> Also, some of the libs are very small, and should be made as fast-
> Furthermore, I think very specialized reviews should be able to happen
> in parallel with other reviews without any problems. The specialized
> review would simply require that a number of reviews be found in
A few unexpected turns of events with several reviews in the queue
have caused delays recently. When you factor those in, getting
review managers for libraries has definitely been more of a sticking
I don't think there's any benefit right now to forcing reviews into
smaller slots or running more in parallel. We are not short on open
time slots in which perform library reviews. More often we are short
on submitted library reviews. Many recent library review periods have
been extended in order to get a reasonable number of full reviews
from boost participants. Shortening library reviews to fast-tracks
and running reviews in parallel will shrink the pool of people who
can provide reviews within the time period and split the pool of
reviewers, seeing as some reviewers will be interested in multiple
libraries and but not have time to perform multiple reviews.
> We could need some wiki or something were interested reviewers could
> sign up (for being a potential reviewer) and record their
> experience in
> the area. This would be very useful for the review managers.
What do you see as the benefit of such a wiki? It's not obvious to me.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk