Subject: Re: [boost] encouraging review managers -- was Re: Review Request: Variadic Macro Data library
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-20 18:58:42
On 2/20/2011 4:52 PM, Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
> 2011/2/20 Edward Diener<eldiener_at_[hidden]>:
>> 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 ?
> As Luke Simonson pointed out in another thread, authors of successful
> libraries ask. Approach people, that you know from discussions,
> directly and personally. Go to BoostCon and give a talk about your
> project. Meet people and ask them if they would be willing to be
> review manager for your library. That's most effective.
That I should have to travel about and "meet people" just to have
someone act as review manager for my library is ludicrous. I really have
other things to do in my life. Nor do I think it is the job of creative
people to play the fool in order to impress others.
>> 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.
> You're not living in reality here. Why should the Review Wizards take
> on such a tedious work to pamper your personal project?
You are not living in reality. You somehow think that writing software
is some sort of a political job.
> Do you think
> they don't have enough pressing work to be done?
I think the work they do is exactly as it is described on the Boost web
> Although the web-site
> gives a different impression
That's the impression I go by.
, it is the most important steps for an
> author to find a review manager in order to get his library into a
> formal review.
> * First you find a review manager
> * then you ask the RVs if your RM is acceptable
> * then you usually get your library scheduled pretty quickly
My library is already scheduled using the protocol which Boost describes.
> This is how things are working currently in my experience.
Good. I claim that the way things work could be much better if the task
of having to find a review manager for a library were taken from the
submitter of that library and placed in the hands of review wizards.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk