Subject: Re: [boost] [review] string convert
From: Gordon Woodhull (gordon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-03 00:32:51
On May 2, 2011, at 12:16 PM, Phil Endecott wrote:
> I think the least important element of any of my reviews has been the headline yes/no "vote", since most proposals have had good and bad aspects, so I have been worried that the last couple of review results have actually called these "votes" and counted them. My recollection (which may be flawed) is that in the past we avoided ever calling reviews "votes".
I do remember a different emphasis when I started following the list about four years ago. I think it's better to think of reviews as consensus-building. Concentrating on the vote just polarizes people.
> Regarding second reviews, the counter-argument is that we have limited reviewing resources and so authors should present their proposals in what they believe is the final state. If an additional round is needed, I would prefer that to be in the form of more "previews".
Yes, it can be a lot of work to review a library or manage a review. Certainly authors should take the process seriously. I just worry about them taking it too seriously and saying "well I'll just take my ball and go home."
We need strong egos to propose daring libraries, perhaps stronger egos to accept criticism about them.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk