Subject: Re: [boost] A Remedy for the Review Manager Starvation
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-15 09:23:07
On 05/15/2010 08:49 AM, Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
> So this is my suggestion:
> (1) Let's increase the standards: Let's make it more difficult for a
> library to be accepted into boost.
> (2) Let's create a new role: The Review Manager Assistant (RMA), who
> does almost all the work that is needed to manage a formal review.
> (3) To take on the job as a review manager assistant will be a
> precondition for a contributor to submit his own library.
> So we are making the contributors lives even harder with this... We
> should give them something on "the other side of the coin":
> (4) Let's foster a general culture of acknowledgement in boost.
> (5) Contribution must not be discouraged by inaction.
> (6) Contribution to boost is a win win game: Even if a library is not
> accepted there will be a value for the contributor and the boost
Although I understand your motivation, I don't share the point of making
things harder for potential library submitters. Boost needs more
libraries, despite of the situation with reviews. The current standards
are already quite high - perhaps, too high - to get new libraries
inside, and raising the plank even higher doesn't look like a good idea
Also, I don't feel quite comfortable with the idea of giving the
steering wheel of the review process to newcomers, which are probably
not very experienced in Boost. I've always thought of review managers as
of well-recognized and experienced Boost members, who have enough
knowledge in the domain of the library being reviewed to understand the
reasoning and make the just judgment in the end. Although the suggested
RMA role has less responsibilities, the assistant still has to
understand and steer the discussion in the right direction. Should he
fail, it will have a major impact on the review quality and the final