Re: [boost] A Remedy for the Review Manager Starvation

Subject: Re: [boost] A Remedy for the Review Manager Starvation
From: Joachim Faulhaber (afojgo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-16 01:15:27

2010/5/15 Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]>:
> 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
>> community.
>
> 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 to me.

What I am suggesting to add is to intensify the process of acquiring
the full picture of the boost standards and the benefits and mechanics
of the review process. As RMA a contributor not only learns about the
boost standards and requirements from his own project, but by
assisting in the review of a fellow's library. Looking from a
different view always gives us new insights and options. And the
motivation of the library contributors is used to help the Review
Managers to get their job done with less effort.

>
> 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,

my basic assumption is that boost contributors are competent, skilled,
passionate about generic programming and sometimes probably also
pretty experienced in the field of interest. Being attracted from
boost and undertaking the adventure (ordeal ;) to bring a library
project into boost is simply not done by some half baked average
skilled and mediocre motivated coders.

At boostcon for instance, I have seen *very* gifted people that are
not yet established boost authors. Why waste these resources.

> ... who have enough knowledge in
> the domain of the library being reviewed

a contributor might have an especially deep knowledge in the problem
domain. He as RMA could support a seasoned booster willing to manage
the review although being not an expert for the lib's specific problem
domain.

> ... to understand the reasoning and
> make the just judgment in the end.

they can build a team and have more fun. Finally the RM decides anyway.

> Although the suggested RMA role has less
> responsibilities, the assistant still has to understand and steer the
> discussion in the right direction.

I disagree here. The majority of reviews are steered by the reviewers,
the participants in the discussion and the author. Most of the time
the RM is impartial and does not influence the discussion. Moreover in
the frequent case of a clear vote from the list, the RM can steer
pretty little anyway.

> Should he fail, it will have a major
> impact on the review quality and the final outcome.

Again, quality and outcome is mostly dependent on the reviewers, the
participants in the discussion and the author.

Regards,
Joachim.