Re: [boost] [metaparse] Review Manager

Subject: Re: [boost] [metaparse] Review Manager
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-03-18 15:40:14

christophe.j.henry wrote
> Hmmm, wouldn't that mean setting the bar higher? Isn't it already high 
> enough? It's not for me to decide but I don't favor this. Seeing the
> incubator as a 
> way to get more reviews is ok for me, but as prerequisite?

OK - let me state it another way.

I would like to avoid situations that have occurred in the past whereby
libraries were reviewed with only a very small number of reviews.  We could
discuss what "small" is.  I think we'd agree that 2 is "small" where 10 is
not "small".   FWIW my pick would be 5.  

If a library is rejected for lack of reviews, we've wasted time of the
review manager and a two week review window - both scarce resources.

If the first couple of reviews highlight some show stopping problem which
forces the author either to retract his review request or accede to
significant re-design - the review resources have also been wasted.

if the review period falls at an inconvenient time for some key reviewers
and they can't make a review in that time frame we've also lost good
opportunity to maximize the effectiveness of the review.

Now look at the incubator NOT as a pre-requisite but rather as  way to
minimize the possibility of a library getting rejected due to not getting
enough serious reviews. Or maximizing the number of quality reviews. So I
would encourage the libraries advocates to post their reviews on the
incubator in advance of the formal review date.  That's all I want to do ...
(for now).  I'll leave open the question of whether it's an effective usage
of scarce resources to do a formal review if there are no existing reviews
in he incubator.

> Hmmm, wouldn't that mean setting the bar higher? Isn't it already high 
> enough? 

YES - it needs to be HIGHER!!!  AND C++ needs MORE libraries.

I'm aware that these two goals seem to conflict - that is why we need to
evolve our procedures.

As a user of boost - it seems that many, many, many times I want to look at
a library and find way too much effort is required to understand and use the
library.  A big, recurring problem is poor documentation.  Library authors
consider it an afterthought rather than an integral part of the library. 
Another big recurring problem is library interface design.  This results in
a number of libraries where the authors state that they can't specify
concepts because ....  well I don't know.  Usually it comes down to the fact
that the library interface isn't really designed - it seems to just sort of
"happen".

Declining to raise our standards is a one way ticket to irrelevance.

Robert Ramey

--
View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/metaparse-Review-Manager-tp4673218p4673385.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.