Re: [boost] Improving review process

Subject: Re: [boost] Improving review process
From: Simonson, Lucanus J (lucanus.j.simonson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-13 13:19:40

vicente.botet wrote:
>>>> - A review manager is only assigned if a review date is set at the
>>>> same time, where the date should be in near future -- say, 3
>>>> months again. 
>>> 
>>> I would say that the author and the review manager must set a date
>>> in the near future, let say 3 months and that this date must be in
>>> the near future, let say 3 months.  
>>> 
>>> IMO, a library that has no review manager before let me say 6 month
>>> should be removed from the list as there is no hard interest. 
>> 
>> Is that necessarily the case? There's a difference between interest
>> and time available from those who consider themselves qualified to
>> be review managers, and interest from end user of a library.
> 
> Interest from the end users is not enoght. And 6 month is quite a lot
> of time to look for available time. 

In my opinion a library should not even be added to the review queue unless a review manager is found and assigned.  

vicente.botet wrote:
> I would say a lack of interest of someone that could be a review
> manager :) 
> IMO, one of the author's role is to look for a review manager between
> the people having an interest for the library. 

I agree that it is the library author's responsibility to find a review manager, not the boost community.  Based on what we see happening it is clear that the libraries that get reviewed and eventually accepted are the ones where the author is active and successful in finding a review manager for themselves.

KTC wrote:
> Take an example of Xint. There were plenty of comments, suggestion and
> review the various time it was "beta'd" on this list asking for
> comments. And that's not counting the fact that a arbitrary precision
> integer library has traditionally been a perennial topic of suggestion
> for GSOC ideas. Yet, almost exactly 6 months to date, it still hasn't
> had a review manager assigned. Is that really a lack of interest in
> such 
> a library, or more a lack of review managers?

I have participated in many arbitrary precision integer library discussions on this list and am using gmp with my own library.  Why have I never gotten an email asking me to be the review manager for Xint?  Has Hartmut been asked?  Has Thomas Klimpel been asked?  Has Beman, has Berend?  You have to ask individual people directly (preferably in person at boostcon) and you will find that they are often happy to be a review manager.  Adding a library to the review queue and complaining you can't get a review manager isn't the same thing as asking a person to be your review manager and the differnce is this: one way works and the other way does not.

Regards,
Luke