Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Improving review process
From: John Maddock (boost.regex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-13 13:59:37


>> 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.

Indeed, and looking at
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/ReviewScheduleLibraries we might not
be in such bad shape (no really!!), ignoring those reviewed and awaiting
results we currently have:

* 4 scheduled for review. So I guess the process is working for these :)
* 5 stalled waiting on other reviews (more than a few of these may well
become unblocked soon). I don't have a problem with this, it's very clear
on the page why they're blocked, and it's up to these authors to chivvy
along the blocking proposal when required :)
* 9 stalled waiting for a review manager - I get the sense that most of
these are small submissions - perhaps a few of questionable value - and a
few that seem to overlap. Perhaps we should have a "review sprint" and get
some of the smaller submissions out of the way en mass?

Cheers, John.


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk