Re: [boost] Boost Review Wizard Report for November 2007

From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-17 14:09:37

Ronald Garcia skrev:
> Hi Thorsten
> 
> 
> On Nov 16, 2007, at 9:39 AM, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:

>> Also, some of the libs are very small, and should be made as fast- 
>> track
>> reviews.
>>
>> 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  
>> advance.
>>
> 
> 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  
> point.
> 
> 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. 

Right.

> Shortening library rno eviews 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.

Example: if I had to be review manager for "Floating Point Utilities",
I could see if there was a reasonable list of people with the right 
experience so the review could commense.

Very often, there absolutely no overlap between libraries. Furthermore, 
if the review manager gathers 5-10 people in advance with experience in 
the area of floats, I see absolutely no reason that the review should 
wait 10 months for an available time slot.

Gathering reviewers *after* the review starts is often too late, because 
  people need time to plan well ahead.

-Thorsten