Re: [boost] Improving review process

Subject: Re: [boost] Improving review process
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-13 13:33:40

Simonson, Lucanus J wrote:

> 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.

There's a big deal of truth in that.

> 
> 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.

There are two ways:

- Have it be author's responsibility to ask potential review managers
- Have somebody else ask folks

The latter approach might be better because "somebody else" might be more
involved in Boost, and therefore know the best folks to review something.

- Volodya

-- 
Vladimir Prus
Mentor Graphics
[phone]