Boost logo

Boost :

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.


> 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.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at