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

Subject: Re: [boost] A Remedy for the Review Manager Starvation
From: Scott McMurray (me22.ca+boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-18 02:23:17

On 18 May 2010 08:08, Joachim Faulhaber <afojgo_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> (1) RW's responsibility to observe reviews closely would grow
> substantially. This would imply much more work for them.
>

Is there a process for getting new RWs?  The responsibility here is
what your proposal has the RMs do, so perhaps what we need is for some
of the current RMs to get promoted to RWs.

>
> (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.
>

I think this is the best argument for your proposal.  I've seen people
worried about whether they're eligible to give a review, let alone
manage one, so getting over that hurdle is good.

I wonder though whether it couldn't be done the other way round, with
a RM given a RW "mentor" who can help resolve the insecurities, and
gives visibility for the RW team that would be making any decision
about calling off 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.
>

This is an interesting question, but I think orthogonal to which procedure.

I suppose the question is whether domain experts -- which, to submit a
competing library they probably would be -- are better used as RMs or
Reviewers.  Having them wear the reviewer hat and letting the domain
non-expert RM deal with the bias might be the better way.