Subject: Re: [boost] [Dataflow] [Review] Dataflow review has ended
From: Jaakko Järvi (jarvi_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-11 16:22:35
David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
> on Thu Sep 11 2008, Gennadiy Rozental <rogeeff-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jaakko Järvi <jarvi <at> cs.tamu.edu> writes:
>>> The number of reviews for the dataflow library was very low (one, positive).
>> This seems to be general theme nowdays. Maybe we can have some kind of
>> pre-registration for people planing to submit the review and reschedule it if
>> this number is less than some threshold (5?)
> This seems like a good idea. There is supposed to be a "gauge interest"
> phase to the submission process. Is that failing to work, or are we
> ignoring its results, or are people claiming interest and then not
> submitting reviews?
In academic conferences, reviews are conducted by program committees
whose members have agreed to the task beforehand. It is very typical
that almost all the reviews are submitted very close to the deadline
of the reviews, often slightly after, so people clearly struggle
finding the time for doing the reviews. However, at least according to
my experience, the reviews eventually get written. There is no formal
commitment to Boost reviews, and thus in a struggle to find time for
a Boost review, I suspect Boost easily loses.
Establishing a "library review committee" by some means before a
review, and announcing it when the review begins might create a
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk