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: 2010-05-18 01:13:41

2010/5/17 Scott McMurray <me22.ca+boost_at_[hidden]>:
> On 17 May 2010 17:01, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> I took Joachim's suggestion to be that the RMA would act as an RM, up to the point of announcing a decision on the list, instead passing collected and generated information to the RM for consideration.  If the RM trusts the RMA's input, or the RM has independently verified the RMA's input, the RM may follow the RMA's decision, even going so far as to copy and paste the RMA's suggested summary message to the list.
>>

The most important function of an RMA is to *support* an RM so the RM
can do his job with a minimal investment of time and that he can
concentrate on the important issues: Evaluation of the controversial
points of the discussion, weighting the conditionals and finding a
final decision particularly if the discussion was controversial and
the vote is tight.

The way in which the RM wants to be supported is essentially up to
him. But it is quite obvious that this usually will imply to do the
jobs that cost time and work:

* A thorough check if the submitted library fulfills the requirements.
Currently this check has to be done by the RM. If it is not done
thoroughly, the violated requirements tend to pop up during the
review, which is usually annoying for the reviewers: In the past there
where such instances: E.g. Missing tests, insufficient docs, examples
didn't compile, too many warnings etc. indicating that RMs frequently
lack time or motivation. Contributors, cause they are facing to
undergo the same check, will likely be very good gatekeepers for that.
For them doing the check thoroughly is effective, cause they learn for
their own project.

* Technical announcements: Advance notice, announcement of dates.

* Compiling statistics and other technical summaries of the review.

* Report about the review's result as a draft for the RM.

> This sounds substantially like promoting the current pool of RMs to
> RWs, and letting new people into the RM pool.

The RMA usually will not make decisions and will not issue a final
verdict about the acceptance of a library.

> What good would an untrusted RMA be?

My basic assumption is that boost contributors are trustworthy,
competent and passionate people. They are attracted by high quality
generic programming and accept high standards and tough discussions.
There are a lot of opportunities to gain trust in them: Postings about
their work on the list. Participation in discussions. Often also
boostcon participation / boostcon talks. The RMA job in an additional
oppotunity. I am shure contributors that volunteer for RMA can be
trusted in the vast majority of cases.

And if there were a case where someone turns out to be a real failure?
(1) The RM may cancel the collaboration with this RMA and look for another OR
(2) does the job himself, in which case he has the same workload as he
had in the old model.

Regards,
Joachim.