Subject: Re: [boost] Updating the Boost Review Process Was: [GGL] Bost.Polygon (GTL) vs GGL - rationale
From: Jose (jmalv04_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-16 12:54:53
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Zachary Turner <divisortheory_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> This would have eliminated the problems like what occured with
> GGL going up for review 1 week after the other was accepted. Now we're in
> the unfortunate situation of either a) having 2 libraries that have massive
> overlap but each providing something unique, b) withdrawing a library that
> has already been accepted (although in reality this won't happen), or c)
> rejecting a library which, if compared directly against the other library
> may have been preferable if users had initially been asked to choose only
> Does this make sense? If I had to summarize this, I'd say that the
> problems are:
> - lack of organization of review process
> - lack of communication between library authors
> - somewhat arbitrary review process
> - no fixed timelines.
The process needs to make it very easy for the author/s proposing the
library/ies as they are doing the hard work
BUT it also has to be updated to prevent the current situation. Also
make it easy for the review manager as it is hard to find the right
expert to be willing to be the review manager.
Under the current policy it's up to the review manager to do whatever!
There is no way to question the review manager decision.
I am saying in this case (probably the first time) it seems that the
decision should be questioned.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk