Subject: Re: [boost] A Remedy for the Review Manager Starvation
From: Joachim Faulhaber (afojgo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-16 00:33:17
> 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.
This is interesting. You tried to invest your work, being review
manager, in order pave the way for *your* library. And this is exactly
what I am saying: We should harness the motivation where it is: At the
Moreover, you tried to apply a strategy to solve a problem that does
not exist. The position of a library in the review queue has nothing
to do with the date of its review. Look at the past reviews and how
they are processed: The single crucial fact is whether you find a
review manager that agrees to start the review.
This shows another thing: There is an official statement on the Review
Schedule web page:
"Reviews are usually scheduled on a first-come-first-served basis"
which is simply not true for the current practice. But based on this
phony statement contributors may start to create ineffective
strategies trying to secure their survival in this fatal queue.
> 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
obviously your contribution has been discouraged here. Work that you
were willing to do has not been done. The review manager assistant
role would allow for exactly this kind of contribution.
> - 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 review
which is another strange inconsistency, because a library should be
only submitted for a formal review, if it fulfills all requirements
for a boost library, so the review could start immediately.
>> (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.
If your lib gained attention throughout discussions, you have
fulfilled the task of checking if there is interest for your lib. I
have experienced the effect myself. Declaring a release or preview
after some discussion often generates not a new discussion. (1.1)
means that a check for interest has successfully been made which has
often be made in the from of "preview". But this can be weakened to:
(1.1) 2 previews on the boost mailing list OR 1 boostcon presentation
OR a substantial amount of discussion or collaboration on the list
that shows a substantial interest in the library.