Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Formal Review Result
From: Barend Gehrels (barend_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-02 16:04:14
On 30-4-2011 18:39, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Chad Nelson wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 19:00:14 +0300
>> Vladimir Prus<vladimir_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> - Christian Henning
>>> - Steven Watanabe
>>> - Jarrad Waterloo
>>> - Edward Diener
>>> - Paul A. Bristow
>> Also Christopher Jefferson, Ivan Sorokin, Barend Gehrels, and Artyom
>> Beilis, and a "conditional yes" from Robert Stewart.
> Sorry for missing those. It seems like last four were missed because
> I was reviewing email in two sessions, and apparently some emails were
> marked as read in between. Also I've missed the vote from Christopher
> since it was on a line that started with the "quote" (">") character.
Sorry to react on this, but I feel this is not as it should be (even if
apologies and reasons are given).
It seems that 5 of 10 positive reviews had not been read at all by the
review manager, or at least not read during making up the review report.
This is not very motivating for the reviewers, neither for the library
I understand that the traffic was really high, that review managers do
this voluntary, everybody don't have all the time, etc.
Reviews are usually carefully written. People spend several hours on it,
sometimes days. Skipping these reviews is a sad thing. Writing a library
cost weeks, sometimes months or more. Forgetting reviews is a very sad
There was somebody who recently mentioned a scoreboard on this list and
I now think this is a good idea, because the review manager can check if
all reviews are taken into account.
Note that it is not that I'm offended my personal review being skipped,
it was not that special and it didn't cost me days. It is more in
general that I feel this is really not honest to the library writer.
>>> NO :
>>> - Mathias Gaunard
>>> - Joel Falcou
>>> - Anders Dalvander
>>> - Joachim Faulhaber
>>> - Phil Endecott
>>> - Domagoj Saric
>>> - Gordon Woodhull ("fraction of a vote")
>> Also Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr.
> The overall picture is still that the votes are split, and I did not use
> specific percentages to make a decision.
In this case it goes (fraction fully counted) from 5/7 to 10/8, flips
from negative to positive. Quite a difference. Even if the decision
stays the same, it requires an extra motivation for rejecting the library.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk