Re: [boost] Review Process [was: [SQL-Connectivity] Is Boost interested in CppDB (license changed to BSL)?]

Subject: Re: [boost] Review Process [was: [SQL-Connectivity] Is Boost interested in CppDB (license changed to BSL)?]
From: Joachim Faulhaber (afojgo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-19 04:55:29

2011/1/19 Robert Kawulak <robert.kawulak_at_[hidden]>:
>> From: Joachim Faulhaber
>> 2011/1/18 Gordon Woodhull <gordon_at_[hidden]>:
>> > Right now it's suggested but not required that authors participate in reviews before submitting
>> libraries. If this were required, and esp if authors had worked as review manager assistants, this
>> would help make sure that they understand the review process before submitting (as well as helping to
>> unlock the review queue).
>>
>> +1,
>>
>> and thanks for helping to unlock the review process of Robert
>> Kawulak's Constrained Value library as *the first* Review Manager
>> Assistant of Boost :)
>
> Indeed, Gordon couldn't constitute a better precedent for this idea putting a lot of valuable work into this.

Because most of this process was communicated off-list, here is some
information of what happened:
Although Robert had a review manager and a successful review with a
majority of yes votes, the project was trapped, because the review
manager did not find time to summarize the discussion, sort out the
conditionals and declare the final results.

At BoostCon we discussed this case and the RMA ideas. Out of this
discussion Gordon volunteered to do the job as a review manager
assistant. He had expertise and had participated in the review and the
related discussion. The idea was just to unburden the review manager,
who suffered from time problems. So Gordon made an excellent summary
of the reviews and the remaining controversial points. When the review
manager still was not able to complete the job, the Review Wizards
agreed to pass the RM resposibilities to Gordon, who finally declared
the review result.

The point here is that we moved the initiative from one competent
person (seasoned booster) who was stuck for what ever reason, to
another competent person (not so seasoned booster), who was motivated
and interested to get the process moving again. The RM could have
taken back the initiative but chose not to do so.

So we took care that *a contribution was not discouraged by mere inaction.*

To pass the initiative, the "action" to the motivated, the vibrant
part of the boost community, without ignoring the experienced, or
"established" part of the community, is the core of my ideas about
introducing Review Manager Assistants.

> As a sidenote, I apologise for yet another period of stagnation with Boost Constrained Value. However, recently I am a bit less busy
> and work towards putting it into Boost at last.

That's good to hear! Good luck with your project.

Best regards,
Joachim

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