Re: [boost] [Locale] Boost Locale looks for review manager:

Subject: Re: [boost] [Locale] Boost Locale looks for review manager:
From: Joachim Faulhaber (afojgo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-18 12:44:44

2011/1/18 Chad Nelson <chad.thecomfychair_at_[hidden]>:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 03:10:42 -0800 (PST)
> Artyom <artyomtnk_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> I think that Boost.Locale would allow us going forward in all Unicode
>> related stuff in Boost and it would help us to get to some
>> standardization in all related to Unicode handling in Boost.
>>
>> So I'm calling for You boost users and developers to volunteer to be
>> a review manager of Boost.Locale.
>
> What kind of time commitment does it require, and what kind of
> expertise is needed?
>
> If it's just studying and working with the code, reading the mailing
> list, compiling the points of the reviews, and making a final
> recommendation based on them, then I'm willing to take it on. I'm
> planning to take a careful look at Boost.Locale this week anyway, and I
> already read the mailing list, so it wouldn't be much additional work
> for me.
>
> As for the expertise, I know just enough to be dangerous -- as I've
> proven in discussion over the last few days. ;-)

I'd like to use this posting as example to promote my idea of a Review
Manager Assistant Role. Chad is volunteers to be Review Manager for
Boost.Locale and is contributor for a new library himself. It is quite
natural, that he offers help for Artyom in this phase of the
contribution process, there's a common interest.

I know that there have been cases where people were not accepted as
Review Manager by the Review Wizards in similar situations. Which is
also understandable: The experienced boosters check the quality of the
work of the newcomers -- no self service.

I think the role of a Reveiw Manager Assistant (RMA), would be the
ideal solution for that.

A Review Manager Assistant (RMA) ...
(1) does all the work that is necessary to check a library
submission, organizes the process, moderates and files a final report,
(2) unburdens the review manager from all kinds of detail work,
except for the final verdict.
(3) rejects the library submission, if it not yet fulfills all requirements.

An RMA will probably be highly motivated, because he learns all about
the standards and the review process that helps him for his own
library project.

An RMA is not necessarily needed for a review. If no RMA is
found the review manager can do the job himself (current procedure).
If an RMA volunteers he can start to organizing the review process. He
checks the lib and requests a review manager, if necessary. If no one
steps forward, the RMA starts the review process, which can not be
halted by mere inaction. Any acceptable review manager can take that
role. If no one takes action, the review is managed by the RMA. The
RMA files the final report on the review within 2 weeks after it ends.
The RM declares the result within 4 weeks after the review on the
basis of the RMA's summary.

Based on the high standards that are checked rigorously by the
RMA a library submitted to boost gets certified as "conforms boost
standards" or similar, even if it fails to be accepted into boost. In
addition to the accepted boost libraries, there will be a collection
of associated libraries (boost friends) that can be listed on a web
page and that officially are allowed to use some logo that informs
about the certified state.

This is a form of acknowledgement for those who took on the
project of a boost contribution but didn't make it into the core
collection and to make them friends or associates of boost rather than
"boost losers".

Cheers,
Joachim

-- 
Interval Container Library [Boost.Icl]
http://www.joachim-faulhaber.de