Re: [boost] Improving review process

Subject: Re: [boost] Improving review process
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-14 06:58:14

At Thu, 13 Jan 2011 21:54:46 -0500,
Edward Diener wrote:
> 
> On 1/13/2011 9:30 PM, Rene Rivera wrote:
> > On 1/13/2011 2:25 PM, Edward Diener wrote:
> >> Once again I will say it although I do not know how to get Boost to
> >> change the way it presently does things with reviews: More than one
> >> review should go on at any one time and the period for a review should
> >> be much longer ( I favor one month ) to give possible reviewers more
> >> time to look at and review seriously a library. Imagine 3 or 4 reviews
> >> during each month period. That should relieve a few bottlenecks.
> >
> > +1
> >
> >> Finally another GMane NG/mailing list for just reviews would give those
> >> interested in reviewing libraries a better focus on reviews and their
> >> responses. Call it the Boost Reviews mailing list and an appropriate
> >> gmane.comp.lib.boost.reviews NG.
> >
> > That might address one of the problems I had as a review manager,
> > mentioned it briefly on IRC today. The biggest pain of the review was
> > sorting out all the emails, it takes a lot of effort & time. Especially
> > since it was not just the reviews themselves, but all the ensuing
> > discussions.
> 
> I think reviews tend to get lost amid the other issues brought up on
> this NG, and therefore a separate mailing list/GMane NG would make it
> easier to be aware, review, and respond to just reviews. This would
> especially be true if there were 3 or 4 reviews going on at the same
> time over a longer period.

In my vision, the reviews for a library are comments on a wordpress
article, and the library's documentation links to the review article.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com