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: Gordon Woodhull (gordon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-20 21:06:04

On Feb 20, 2011, at 8:54 AM, Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
> Gordon Woodhull wrote:
>> Second, Joachim proposed the role of Review Manager Assistant as a way for new authors like Ed (and myself and many others) to manage reviews in conjunction with more seasoned boosters.  The Assistant would do most of the work of summarizing the debate, and then the senior Review Manager would make decisions and produce the final report.
>> 
>> I would like to suggest a generalization which is more fluid (and which would allow RMAs to put the nicer title "Review Manager" on their CVs): simply allow multiple Review Managers for a review.  The managers can decide how to split up the work: in sequence like Joachim's RMA/RM idea, or in parallel by divvying up topics for the report.  Or some mix of the two.
> 
> Personally I am more interested in clear commitments for a particular
> role and taking responsibility for that role within the Boost
> community. A "Review Manager Crowd" I dislike ...

Okay, I will admit it, it's only the name I don't like about Review Manager Assistant!  Unfortunately in the USA, with the bizarre way that Political Correct language evolves and devolves, Assistant is synonymous with Secretary, and has the same negative connotations.  Let's be realistic, we want something that looks nice on a CV - but I do hope that if anyone shoddily tries to manage a review just to pad their resume, they'll be forced to actually do the work.

Really, the RMA is doing all of the work and making all of the decisions, and the Review Manager should approve, or disagree and redo part of the work.

That is why I like the idea of just calling the RMA a Review Manager, and it may happen that their work is being checked by another Review Manager.  But I'd also be open to other names, such as

Review Compiler (a pun)
Review Summarizer (awkward)
Review Reader (too mild)
Review Investigator
...

> More fundamental to my thoughts
> http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2010/05/166423.php
> is the idea to make the RMA job
> (1) A precondition to an own first library submission
> because obviously the most energy, excitement and motivation is in the
> endeavour of library contribution.

I don't think someone who has some insanely brilliant library should be deterred from submitting it because they haven't "compiled" a review.  But I think this should be one of the ways to show that they have the cooperative instincts and stick-to-it-iveness to be a good maintainer and member of the community.

> First time contributors should
> (2) learn thoroughly all aspects and standards around boost libraries being RMA
> (3) help to enhance the quality of submissions of libraries of others
> and the quality of the review queue as a whole.
> (4) have an opportunity to establish themselves in a role of
> contributing for others

Above all, to understand the review process and learn how debates are resolved and consensus is reached before they head into their own review.  

> (5) empower the group of contributors and make them more independent
> of the boost functionaries
> (6) unburden the boost functionaries

I think it might be possible for for the Wizards to encourage these connections to happen, but I have to think about it.

> (7) Finally, functionaries can not discourage contributions by mere
> inaction anymore. They would have to veto. Which I think is
> appropriate because contributors deserve a response. Not necessarily a
> yes, but a response.

I think you are suggesting that the Wizards get to veto a review report if they don't think it was done properly or fairly.  I want to democratize that suggestion, and say that it should be possible for a review to be challenged by anyone on the list.  If the Wizards think a challenge has merit -- using the same anti-troll (and anti-"I just won't use this ridiculous stuff") criteria that Review Managers use to judge No votes -- then it can go for a second review with a different review manager.

> Thanks for your numerous contributions to boost!

You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Cheers,
Gordon