Subject: Re: [boost] [process] [sorting] [singularity] [compute] [others] Who needs review manager?
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-09-13 18:27:43
On 9/13/2014 4:52 PM, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> On Saturday 13 September 2014 13:25:30 Robert Ramey wrote:
>> Antony Polukhin wrote
>>> 2014-09-10 20:55 GMT+04:00 Niall Douglas <
>>>> However, as you're ready to review manage now, and the v1.3 engine is
>>>> likely to not arrive before the end of 2014, please do look through
>>>> the docs now relocated to http://boostgsoc13.github.io/boost.afio/. I
>>>> have made some improvements based on what Robert said about them. If
>>>> you think the library is ready for review now, do let me know.
>>> I'll take a closer look to the library and write a personal note with
>>> comments/notes as soon as I get some free time.
>>> But first of all, I'll take care of the Compute review :-)
>> I'm wondering if perhaps you've got confused about the differing roles
>> of review manager vs reviewer. IRC a review manager doesn't review
>> libraries himself, he reviews the reviews of others, weighs them and
>> arrives at a acceptance/rejection.
> I don't think there is a rule on this. The review manager is free in choosing
> means to form an opinion of the library, including reviewing it himself.
Using Robert Ramey' analogy this would be the same as a judge in a court
case also serving as a juryman and casting his vote. I do not believe
that should ever be the situation either in a law court or during a
Boost library review.
> fact, I'd say, the review manager is expected to acquaint himself with the
> library to form educated opinion.
Of course, but this does not mean that the review manager should be
reviewing the library. A good review manager's responsibility is to be
as impartial as he can be in deciding, based on the reviews and his
knowledge of the library functionality, whether it should be accepted or
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk