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 02:08:29

2010/5/18 Scott McMurray <me22.ca+boost_at_[hidden]>:
> On 18 May 2010 07:13, Joachim Faulhaber <afojgo_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> My basic assumption is that boost contributors are trustworthy,
>> competent and passionate people. [...] I am shure contributors
>> that volunteer for RMA can be trusted in the vast majority of cases.
>>
>
> Then why not let them become RMs, and just allow the RWs to call a
> mistrial if they think it necessary?

This would let the structure remain simpler, which would be nice. On
the other hand:

(1) RW's responsibility to observe reviews closely would grow
substantially. This would imply much more work for them.
(2) New contributors, although trustworthy, generally have less
experience within boost. Therefore ...
(3) ... new contributors may not be willing to take the responsibility
for decisions although they may be willing to support a review.
(4) Although a new contributor is likely to be more motivated, in his
position he may not be as impartial as an already accepted boost
author. He may tend to accept a fellows project in order to pave the
way for his own library. He may tend to reject a competitors project,
being afraid that its acceptance reduces the chances for his library.

Best,
Joachim.