Subject: Re: [boost] encouraging review managers -- was Re: Review Request: Variadic Macro Data library
From: Gordon Woodhull (gordon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-20 21:52:53
On Feb 20, 2011, at 8:37 PM, Edward Diener wrote:
> 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.
Fair enough. This doesn't worry me very much, but
- I think there should be a way to challenge a review afterward, through the Wizards and/or list as appropriate.
- If someone doubts the objectivity, independence, or competence of a review manager before the review starts, they should contact the Review Wizards. Again, I don't think the RWs should be expected to decide the fitness of an RM before scheduling the review, but they should be there to mediate disputes and make judgements.
I don't think we should have some strict rule that would e.g. disqualify Hartmut from managing the Phoenix review because Spirit uses Phoenix, or Christophe from managing my review because he's using my library. Boost is all about encouraging connections between libraries and people. (and "neat stuff" :)
Certainly an author of the library under review should be disqualified because of ego attachment. It's hard for me to think of other reasons why a manager should be rejected out of hand, although I encourage you to think about any guidelines that would help the Wizards guard against "vested interests".
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk