Subject: Re: [boost] Improving review process
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-13 16:23:22
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> Recently, there were various comments about current review
>> process, and its possible improvements. However, I wanted to
>> start with a small point.
>> Looking at:
>> it seems that a few libraries have a review manager assigned,
>> but there's no date. This means that:
>> - It looks like our review schedule is full, because the item
>> is there, and
>> - It prevents anybody to volunteer as review manager for such
> If there's a review manager assigned, then there's no need for another volunteer. If the review manager is the bottleneck, the library author is free to solicit another.
I think I agree with Volodya here.
>> I think there might be several reasons why a library does not
>> have a review date:
>> - The library is not actually ready. In that case, it should
>> not be in that table at all.
>> - The library author does not have the time for review. In
>> that case, the library should also be removed from the list,
>> because Boost is not responsible if the author is busy.
> I'm not certain I agree. The name of the first table on that page is "SCHEDULE," yet only one library in it has a date. It is reasonable to manage two tables, one for scheduled and one for not-yet-scheduled libraries. That would retain the information currently shown in the "SCHEDULE" table while not implying that such libraries are scheduled.
I don't think information about not-yet-ready libraries has any public
value in the context of the review queue. Boost and its review
wizards should not be responsible for maintaining that, except perhaps
to clean it up!
>> - The review manager does not have the time for review. In
>> that case, he should not be listed as assigned, and should not
>> block others.
> I can almost agree with that. Perhaps the review manager could be flagged as "tentative" rather than removing the name altogether. Perhaps there should be several tables: scheduled, review manager needed, not yet scheduled. If a person is willing to be a review manager, but currently doesn't have time for a review, that library could be put in the "review manager needed" table which can include a "tentative review manager" column listing the current volunteer.
Again, I don't think that information has any public value in the
context of a review queue.
>> Can we set a policy that:
>> - A library can only be added in the review schedule if the
>> author has time in near future to have a review, where near
>> future is, say, 3 months.
> I would agree to that if there was also a not-yet-scheduled table to which such libraries can be moved.
Anybody who wants to can maintain such a table, but IMO it should
*not* be associated with the review queue or maintained by the same
>> - 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 disagree. A review manager should be assigned, even if marked tentative, as soon as a commitment has been made. It looks far better for a potential library that there is someone interested in promoting the library and its review.
I disagree; I don't think promoting submissions should be considered
part of the role of the review queue.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk