Subject: Re: [boost] Boost summer of formal reviews
From: Rob Stewart (robertstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-03-11 08:18:12
On March 11, 2014 6:29:15 AM EDT, Borislav Stanimirov <b.stanimirov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>This is a (half-)joke suggestion.
>There are currently 19 libraries in the review schedule (
>http://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html ) which need a
>review manager (yes, including mine). Some of them have been there for
Sad, but true.
>Instead of focusing on getting people to write new libraries, which
>could potentially end up stuck in the review schedule (like AFIO), why
>don't we focus on getting the reviews for the ones that are already
>there. Or at least revising the review process.
Robert Ramey has ideas on improving the process. Others have made suggestions over the years, but we've made little change to it this far. Still, if you've got concrete ideas for improving the backlog, speak up.
>For example, I would be willing to review some of these libraries, but
>I am not qualified to be a review manager (since I am not very active in
Being a review manager is a big job. You need to ensure that the library is ready, you need domain expertise in order to well and fairly judge the review comments, and you need to commit time to the review period and writing the report. That's a significant burden and it's little wonder few are stepping up to do it.
(Sent from my portable computation engine)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk