Subject: Re: [boost] encouraging review managers -- was Re: Review Request: Variadic Macro Data library
From: Joachim Faulhaber (afojgo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-20 08:54:59
2011/2/19 Gordon Woodhull <gordon_at_[hidden]>:
> Hi Ron, Ed, all,
> On Feb 18, 2011, at 10:58 AM, Ronald Garcia wrote:
>> On Feb 18, 2011, at 10:06 AM, Edward Diener wrote:
>>> On 2/18/2011 9:36 AM, Ronald Garcia wrote:
>>>> At this time you should try to find a review manager for the library.
>>> I am not sure how one goes about doing that, but I will assume I am supposed to ask for one on this mailing list.
>> That's right. The review wizards will also be putting out a report which requests managers for libraries that don't have one, but individual appeals are often more effective.
> I have been mulling over Joachim's Review Manager Assistant proposal, and I have a couple of thoughts about review manager assignments.
> First, as Joachim and many others have pointed out, the review "queue" that's described in
> doesn't exist and isn't the right idea.
What the web-site states
(1) does not happen in reality
(2) leads to false expectations specifically from contributors
(3) puts expectations on the review wizards that they can not fulfill
(4) leads to ineffective behavior on the side of the contributors
(5) and to frustration.
> I'd like to see the cruft removed from the Formal Review Process. It's confusing and discouraging.
> Second, Joachim proposed the role of Review Manager Assistant as a way for new authors like Ed (and myself and many others) to manage reviews in conjunction with more seasoned boosters. The Assistant would do most of the work of summarizing the debate, and then the senior Review Manager would make decisions and produce the final report.
> I would like to suggest a generalization which is more fluid (and which would allow RMAs to put the nicer title "Review Manager" on their CVs): simply allow multiple Review Managers for a review. The managers can decide how to split up the work: in sequence like Joachim's RMA/RM idea, or in parallel by divvying up topics for the report. Or some mix of the two.
Personally I am more interested in clear commitments for a particular
role and taking responsibility for that role within the Boost
community. A "Review Manager Crowd" I dislike ...
More fundamental to my thoughts
is the idea to make the RMA job
(1) A precondition to an own first library submission
because obviously the most energy, excitement and motivation is in the
endeavour of library contribution.
First time contributors should
(2) learn thoroughly all aspects and standards around boost libraries being RMA
(3) help to enhance the quality of submissions of libraries of others
and the quality of the review queue as a whole.
(4) have an opportunity to establish themselves in a role of
contributing for others
(5) empower the group of contributors and make them more independent
of the boost functionaries
(6) unburden the boost functionaries
(7) Finally, functionaries can not discourage contributions by mere
inaction anymore. They would have to veto. Which I think is
appropriate because contributors deserve a response. Not necessarily a
yes, but a response.
> On a personal note, I just want to say what a valuable experience it is to manage a Boost review.
> MPL.Graph's code and documentation are almost ready for review, and I feel that I am also psychologically ready because of what I learned from managing the Constrained Value review last summer.
> P.P.S. I'd volunteer to manage this review, as I'm eager to be an RM again, but I don't know much about macros.
Thanks for your numerous contributions to boost!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk