Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] encouraging review managers -- was Re: Review Request: Variadic Macro Data library
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-20 20:37:03

On 2/20/2011 7:58 PM, Gordon Woodhull wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2011, at 2:24 PM, Edward Diener wrote:
>> 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:
>>>>> 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
>>> BoostCon
>> I have to correct that. I have never been to BoostCon.
> I object to the idea that going to BoostCon makes one a better member of the community. While BoostCon is truly amazing and I'm glad to have seen and heard people, proving oneself helpful and knowledgeable enough to manage a review happens right here on the list, and in the code.
>> 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.
> You seem to be hoping that the system can ensure objectivity. But you are talking about a group of very passionate, brilliant programmers! Of course the review manager is going to have opinions.
> [Case in point: Christophe Henry, who is using my library MPL.Graph, has volunteered to manage the review. Of course he is going to be biased toward acceptance, but I don't doubt that he'll be objective enough to take any No votes or Conditions on Acceptance seriously.]
> But I've never seen someone maliciously volunteer to manage a review because they wanted to reject the library, although I've seen review managers reluctantly vote against the library. Generally if a library is rejected the author is encouraged to rewrite and resubmit, and they could certainly request a different review manager the next time.

I am more concerned that a review manager will tend to approve of a
library in which he has a vested interest than that a library will be
rejected because a review manager is being malicious in any way.

> Cheer up, this is a friendly place, if strongly opinionated. Everyone wants you to do your best work.

Good programmers are strongly opinionated ? Heaven forfend ! <g>

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at