Subject: Re: [boost] Boost summer of formal reviews
From: Vladimir Batov (Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-03-11 17:29:22
On 03/12/2014 07:57 AM, Rhys Ulerich wrote:
>> More practical (less off-putting) IMO might be 2-level review when an
>> idea/design, API, first-cut implementation and readable/sensible
>> documentation are presented for evaluation. If that's rejected outright,
>> then it saves the author a lot of effort that he might direct onto improving
>> his original design/offering. If the initial concept is accepted, then the
>> author would have a real incentive to keep working and improving his
>> original submission behind more/less stable and already-approved API.
> This looks like a pre-proposal often done in academia (and other
> realms) when preparing a full proposal is a serious amount of work.
> That said, it would likely increase the number of review managers
> required as one has to manage the pre-reviews now.
> - Rhys
My initial expectation would be that the same person would curate/manage
both reviews. More so, come to think of it, I am not sure the second
review can be considered/treated as such or even I dare say needed. All
the work related to the 2nd phase will be largely invisible to the
user... implementation details so to speak. It might need the submission
manager empowered with the last word if the submission is ready for
actual inclusion or not. Seems like no need for 2nd -- implementation --
review. Obviously just my thoughts...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk