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: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-21 01:38:03

AMDG

On 2/20/2011 9:55 PM, Gordon Woodhull wrote:
> Yes, this works great and I hope that I'm emphasizing that side enough.
>
> If a library is rejected, the author can rewrite and seek a second review with (IMO?) a different review manager if necessary.
>
> Ed's concern is with the far thornier issue of, what if you think a library was improperly *accepted*, if the review manager was too biased in favor of the library?
>
> Aside from authors of competing libraries (who are free to submit theirs or try to get their features merged), and Luddites, have you ever seen someone severely angered by a result of acceptance?
>
> I'm not saying it can't happen, and I want to be sure there is a mechanism to resolve conflicts in case of incompetent or over-favoring review managers.
>

If anyone can ever make a reasonable claim that
there's been a serious problem, we can deal
with it then.  We don't need any formalized
process to deal with hypothetical problems.

> If we admit that Review Wizards can't tell beforehand whether a Review Manager is going to do a good job, as Joachim and I are arguing, then people should just volunteer to manage reviews and not bother registering with the Wizards for a nonexistent queue.
>
> But it is possible that these volunteers could be nincompoops or shills, and the Review Wizards and the whole community need the power to remove a bad manager or nullify the results.
>
> The classic case might be, what if some bad company submitted a library that would lock everyone using C++ into their products (not sure how this would happen, but bear with me) and then "volunteered" one of their employees to manage the review?  At that point I think someone should complain to the Wizards, who have the authority to reject managers.  (I doubt this is exactly what Ed is worried about, just musing.)
>

This would clearly violate the license requirements.

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe