Re: [boost] Improving review process

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

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