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: 2010-05-17 12:21:09

2010/5/17 Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]>
>
> vicente.botet wrote:
> >
> > The question is who will check that the library meets all the
> > review requirements. If I have understood, the review
> > withards can not take this completly in account, as this
> > check is not an automatic task. So we can have libraries on
> > the review schedule that are not ready for review.
>
> Joachim has suggested that is the responsibility of the RMA.  Presently, any author making the request must self-police before making the request.
>
> > This can be also the case for libraries that have a review
> > manager. As review manager of the Boost.Task library I can
> > say that, when I accepted this role the library
> > (Boost.Threadpool was named) was almost ready for review. The
> > author changed the library with the intention, of course, of
> > improving its own library and now the library is not ready
> > for review.
> >
> > Should I request to remove myself as review manager, as now
> > the library is not ready for review?
>
> I don't see that as necessary.
>
> > Should we remove the libraries that are not ready for review
> > from the review schedule?
>
> Perhaps that is the wrong way to view this.
> Perhaps there should be a two-stage review queue.
> The first stage for author's requesting an RMA to look
> at standards compliance and general review readiness
> of a proposed library.  The second stage for libraries that
> have passed the readiness review, possibly need a RM,
> and can be scheduled at any time.

I'd like to keep things simple and make them more consistent and
clear. Currently the idea and reality of the review schedule is
simple, but it is not handled in a clear and consistent way. Therefore
I think, introducing more levels is not helpful.

An additional level is already proposed by Robert Ramey, Paul Bristow
and others: The "incubator", or "boost candidates". Currently this
status already exists and it is labeled: Libraries under construction.
This list is maintained by the review wizards and published as part of
their regular report. In addition there is the library under
construction list on the wiki started by Vicente.

In order to keep it simple and make it clearer and more consistent, my
suggestion is, that the RMA checks the library thoroughly and only
those libraries that fulfill the requirements stay in the review
schedule.

Checking the requirements of a library a lot of work. Ideally a
contributor of a library in his role as RMA does this work thoroughly
because he is motivated to study what it means to have a candidate
library ready for review. He then accepts the library for the review
schedule of rejects it, providing a list insufficiently fulfilled
requirements for the submitter.

This
(1) Makes the review schedule smaller
(2) Makes it status clear and consistent
(3) Increases the overall quality of libraries in the schedule
(4) which makes the job of reviewing a library more effective: We can
concentrate on the most important points: Design, usefullness,
originallity, ... instead of messing with things like completeness of
tests or implementation of warning policies.

Moreover, in my proposal, the RMA and the submitter can now schedule
the library's review. Because of point (5) of my proposal:
"Contribution must not be discouraged by inaction", contributor and
submitter can now move on, using the momentum of the project. If a
review manager is not there after the RMA accepted the submission
there should be an appropriate time period of say 2 weeks to find him.
If no one steps forward during that period of time, the RMA carries on
managing the review.

Best regards,
Joachim.