Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Improving review process
From: John Phillips (phillips_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-13 21:29:33

On 1/13/2011 2:20 PM, Phil Endecott wrote:
> vicente.botet wrote:
>> IMO, one of the author's role is to look for a review manager
> I'd just like to insert a small note of caution, that the review manager
> needs to be somewhat neutral about the library being reviewed. Having
> the library author choose their review manager makes it more likely that
> they will select someone who is predisposed in their favour. Ideally we
> would have multiple candidates for each post and the wizards would
> choose someone based on their domain expertise. In the absence of a
> queue of suitable candidates, of course it's fine for the library author
> to encourage people - but I would prefer for that to happen in public.
> Phil.

   In general, the Review Wizards discuss Manager candidates. On some
occasions we have decided a potential Manager was not a good choice at
that time. We discuss whether we think the potential manager has the
technical skills to understand the issues in the review (The Manager
does not need to be an expert in the field of the library, but does need
to understand issues as they come up in the review.), and whether the
manager is a good choice for providing a fair and active review period
and evaluation. In specific, on the couple of instances where a conflict
of interest seemed possible, there was an off line discussion with the
potential Manager.

   We also encourage authors to beat the bushes for potential Managers,
and we encourage interested parties to volunteer, but we view part of
our role as quality control on the Manager selection, and we take that


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at