Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Formal Review Result
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-03 06:13:53
Barend Gehrels wrote:
> 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.
Thanks for giving me the benefit of doubt, and I think it's the latter
than happened -- that is, emails were read, but not written down in
> 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.
Well, I can say again that I'm sorry, and that this is lame, and of
course a technical mechanism would make counting of votes be more accurate.
>>>> 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.
This is not something I'd agree with. 10/8 is actually 55%. That's not
a sufficiently wide margin that the simple counting of votes can reasonably
-- Vladimir Prus Mentor Graphics +7 (812) 677-68-40
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk