Subject: Re: [boost] encouraging review managers -- was Re: Review Request: Variadic Macro Data library
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-20 14:24:45
On 2/20/2011 12:12 PM, Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
> 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
>>> 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
I have to correct that. I have never been to 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
> (4) he was not subsequently contacted!
Thanks for the boost on Boost, but I am fine with the decision.
I do believe that having so many libraries waiting for reviews, which
puts the potential, at least, for a library being added to Boost as some
time pretty far relatively in the future, is not a great thing. I made
the suggestion in the past that more than one review going on at a time,
and a longer review process for each library, be allowed in order to get
libraries reviewed more quickly. I honestly do not see that the slowness
of the review process has much to do with libraries having review
managers or not. Usually a library which is scheduled for review fairly
soon will get a review manager somehow. But maybe this is a problem in
that the review schedule is at least partially determined by those
libraries which have review managers.
At the same time the process for a library submitter finding a review
manager for his library seems very odd to me. One posts a message on
this mailing list and hopes someone responds saying that they are
willing to be the review manager. if no one responds, what does one do
then ? If someone responds, and the library implementer does not know
that person from the mailing list, how does one choose whether or not
that person is acceptable or not ?
In a real way I would rather a review wizard go through a list of people
which he knows are knowledgable and experienced enough to be a review
manager and contact each of those people until he finds one to be a
review manager for a library. It would be much easier than placing the
burden of finding a review manager for a library on the library
submitter. It would also almost assuredly mean that the review manager
would have little personal bias approving or not approving a library for
inclusion into Boost at the end of the review process.
> 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
> (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
> (4) Seasoned boosters can veto if things go astray. In addition they
> contribute as mentors and help finding decisions in controversial
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk