Subject: Re: [boost] A Remedy for the Review Manager Starvation
Date: 2010-05-15 08:52:00
Zitat von Joachim Faulhaber <afojgo_at_[hidden]>:
> (3) To take on the job as a review manager assistant will be a
> precondition for a contributor to submit his own library.
I don't even think that is much of a requirement. I offered to
volunteer as a review manager, if only for the reason that the review
queue will be shorter once my library is up for review.
the response I got from the list and a review wizard was:
- you should have a library in boost in order to be a review manager
- the lack of review managers isn't the bottleneck of the review
process right now, most libraries on the review queue aren't ready for
> (5) Contribution must not be discouraged by inaction.
> (1.1) 2 previews on the boost mailing list OR 1 boostcon presentation
> with a sufficient feedback of interest from the community
I think (5) is very important (especially when you make it a
requirement for reviews), and hard to accomplish.
the previews I've seen posted barely got any response, which is no
surprise when people don't even have the time to write REviews.
so if previews will be a requirement for library submission, a lack of
response on the list should not be interpreted as a lack of interest.
and to generate some response, I think the PREview process should be
formalized in a similar way the REview process is.
my library preview (with full documentation) got almost no response,
even though I know for a fact that there is interest for such a
library from earlier threads, and I'm collaborating with 2 other boost
library authors to make our libraries work together.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk