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

Subject: Re: [boost] A Remedy for the Review Manager Starvation
From: Manfred Doudar (manfred.doudar_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-17 22:01:28

On Mon, 17 May 2010 11:16:06 -0400
"Stewart, Robert" <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Manfred Doudar wrote:
> > Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > > On 05/15/2010 08:49 AM, Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip..>
> >
> > I currently have a number of libraries that would prove of utility
> > for Boost, and have been sitting on them for some time, in some
> > cases, over
> > 2 years.  Polishing them up, particularly with regard to
> > documentation,
> > keeps me from doing so for the mean time, not to mention the effort/
> > time to go that extra mile, in-between my other priorities.
> >
> > So I share Andrey's view with respect to the above.  I expect any
> > submission to be burdensome on my time, and making things more
> > difficult, would make me think twice about bringing forward
> > some rather worthwhile libraries.
> 
> Boost needs an active community.  As Joachim pointed out, those
> submitting libraries are the most highly motivated to be active, so
> siphoning some of that energy to managing reviews is not
> unreasonable.

+1

But note, that is not what I was objecting to.  Here the suggestion is
to roll in role of an RMA and library submitter into one - what I am
saying is that both in their own right are process intensive.  I'm all
for raising the bar, but to put red-tape around submissions IMHO is
misled, and should not be as strongly coupled to the lack of
review-managers.

>  If that burden is enough to thwart submission of a
> library, then it's reasonable to question the commitment of the
> author to support and maintain an accepted library.

+1

You won't find any argument from me about that one.

> 
> > > 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.
> >
> > -1
> >
> > I know what you are getting at Andrey, but would not want to lower
> > the bar on what goes into boost.
> 
> +1
> 
> > > 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.
> >
> > +1
> 
> This is a misreading of the suggestion or its intent.

Even if it were a misreading of the intent, or suggestion - there will
inevitably be new library submitters with that are not cognizant with
Boost process or expectation, and I'd like to see clarification on how
this proposal expects such persons to take on the role of RMA and
oversee the expectations sought of them.

> 
> > When I think about Joachim's post, it becomes clear what the issue
> > is, and offer a suggestion - maybe some will agree:
> >
> > To up the count of review managers, and hence facilitate the
> > process of
> > evaluating and libraries, and cutting down on a growing
> > review-queue, a
> > better approach might be that once a library is accepted into boost,
> > an author must take on a role of an RMA for some library in the
> > queue, and drive that forward to full review.  They'll be
> > experienced up to a point, having gone through the submission
> > process once before, but may need some mentoring along the way
> > nonetheless.
> 
> I don't agree with this approach only because after a library has
> been accepted, the author must typically spend a good deal of time
> addressing review issues, merge the code into trunk, and begin the
> process of support and maintenance.  That will detract from interest
> and time to be a RM.

Note, I didn't say when a library submitter would next be called up for
RM duties - but in writing what I did, it had also crossed my mind the
duties that remain on submitters whose libraries have been accepted.  I
think it would stand to reason, that after process of merging into the
trunk and addressing issues pertaining to post-acceptance, a library
author would reasonably be called up to be an RM at some future time
thereafter.

> 
> > And yes, I should put some time aside, and bring those libraries of
> > mine forward, that can only be a good thing - and maybe Joachim
> > might have his first RMA too.
> 
> Please do.
> 

I hope I just might.

Cheers,
-- 
Manfred