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: 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 
site.

> 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.