Subject: Re: [boost] Improving review process
From: Marshall Clow (mclow.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-13 14:01:59
On Jan 13, 2011, at 10:59 AM, John Maddock 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.
> 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 :)
I've got one (Boost.Algorithm) that I should be posting RSN....
Marshall Clow Idio Software <mailto:mclow.lists_at_[hidden]>
A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait).
-- Yu Suzuki
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk