Re: [boost] encouraging review managers -- was Re: Review Request: Variadic Macro Data library

Subject: Re: [boost] encouraging review managers -- was Re: Review Request: Variadic Macro Data library
From: Joachim Faulhaber (afojgo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-20 12:12:06

2011/2/19 Edward Diener <eldiener_at_[hidden]>:
> On 2/19/2011 3:57 PM, Gordon Woodhull wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ron, Ed, all,
>>
>> On Feb 18, 2011, at 10:58 AM, Ronald Garcia wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> On Feb 18, 2011, at 10:06 AM, Edward Diener wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> On 2/18/2011 9:36 AM, Ronald Garcia wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> At this time you should try to find a review manager for the library.
>>>>
>>
>> Ed, you volunteered to be a review manager about a month ago.  Have you
>> approached any of the authors of prospective libraries on
>> http://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html
>> who are listed as needing review managers?
>
> I was told to contact the review wizards and offer up my services to review
> libraries. I did so, and mentioned the libraries I felt I could review. As I
> understand it, it was then up to the review wizards to determine whether I
> was qualified to review a library and to contact me about doing so if they
> thought that I was. I was not subsequently contacted.

!!
This is at least delicate and definitely "not amusing".
(1) Ed volunteered to be Review Manager for a couple of libs
(2) Ed is around in the Boost community for quite some time including
BoostCon and is going to be first time library contributor. As an
active Boost member he should qualify to be an RM, shouldn't he. At
least he deserves a respose!
(3) Many libs still don't have an RM
AND
(4) he was not subsequently contacted!

There are different interpretations one can have about facts (1) to
(4). I prefer this one:

The construction of a looooong term duty, like the Reveiw Wizard Role,
is just not working so well. RWs have a lot of duties and a lot of
expectations put on them (e.g. by phony statements and standards on
the web-site). At the heart of the review process they control things
by accepting or rejecting RMs for library submissions. That gives them
power and responsibility. What do they get for that? How are they
motivated for all the work over years? What if they just have too
little time to always care for all the requests and expectations
directed towards them, follow all those discussions and keeping track
of the qualifications of potential review managers. What if they
aren't real Wizards but only humans?

In my view,

(1) Initiative and action should be "passed" to the people that are
highly motivated: The group of contributors that have ideas and
projects.
(2) Quality control and the technical management of library review can
be organized by contributors via the Review Manager Assistant role.
(3) The "sovereign" is the community of developers: Discussions and
formal reviews are crucial for acceptance or rejection of new
libraries.
(4) Seasoned boosters can veto if things go astray. In addition they
contribute as mentors and help finding decisions in controversial
cases.

Best regards,
Joachim

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