Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review Schedule Queue
From: Gordon Woodhull (gordon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-25 03:59:56
On Nov 25, 2011, at 3:24 AM, Ben Robinson wrote:
> Currently, there are eight library submissions in the queue, none of which
> have a review manager or a scheduled review period. What is the process to
> assign review managers?
In practice, people volunteer to be review managers for particular libraries, and if the Review Wizards approve them, the three parties negotiate the date.
So instead of an actual queue it is really that authors seek interest and if there is enough interest, then someone is bound to volunteer to manage the review.
IMO it would not be possible for the Review Wizards to assign review managers as described in the formal review process , and the purely voluntary approach that has evolved is superior.
I have volunteered to write a patch but I haven't followed through yet. Perhaps if there were more discussion it would be clearer what language to suggest. Is it worthwhile calling it something besides a queue? Or should we say "the Queue is not a queue"?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk