Re: [boost] Formalising the review process into a well specified workflow (was: Re: [Boost-announce] [metaparse] Review period star

Subject: Re: [boost] Formalising the review process into a well specified workflow (was: Re: [Boost-announce] [metaparse] Review period star
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-03 07:02:06

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Niall Douglas
> Sent: 03 June 2015 11:04
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] Formalising the review process into a well specified workflow (was: Re:
[Boost-announce]
> [metaparse] Review period star
> 
> On 3 Jun 2015 at 5:07, Rob Stewart wrote:
> 
> > At this point, everyone is agreed to proceed, so this will be a lesson
> > for future library submitters and review managers.
> 
> I think that is exactly the wrong conclusion to draw, and the past drawing of that conclusion had
led to us
> repeating, yet again, an unpleasant and inefficient review compared to what it should have been.
No
> wonder the review pipeline ground to a halt in the past, everyone just gets put off.
> 
> 
> A much better conclusion to draw is this:
> 
> 1. There is more than one kind of library peer review:
> 
>   a. "I'm working on this new library, I would like to hear comments on it"
> 
>   b. "I have this preexisting mature library which I would like to add to Boost, is Boost
interested in it?"
> 
>   c. "I have an idea for a new library, would Boost be interested in it?"
> 
>   d. "I have finished this library and I believe it is ready to enter Boost"
> 
>   Also:
> 
>   e. "I have substantially refactored an existing Boost library into a breaking change which
affects other
> Boost libraries"
> 
> 
> 2. Different types of library review have different procedures, so
> essentially:
> 
>   a => Incubator
>   b => Formal Review, no Review Manager
>   c => boost-dev mailing list
>   d => Formal Review, needs Review Manager
>   e => Whatever the maintainer thinks best
> 
> 
> 3. Different kind of library review should have detailed, step by
> step, "tick box" formalised procedures (formal workflow) to take the
> (prospective) library author from where they begin to a successfully
> completed conclusion with a minimum of inefficiency.
> 
> 
> 4. There is no shortage of free web tooling which can automate the
> ticking of those boxes and walk library authors through the
> formalised procedure. Indeed, Boost already is on Google Apps, and
> Google Forms is one of the best free web tooling for forms. Unlike
> most other Boost infrastructure needs (hint - is my volunteering to
> upgrade Trac approved? If so, a ball needs to start rolling) where
> our infrastructure requirements simply aren't there yet, for Forms
> and workflow programming we are ready to go.
> 
> 
> 5. Ideally in the future a review manager would have their own form
> with boxes to tick, and part of their form would be to check the form
> the library author filled in i.e. the forms themselves feed into one
> another as part of the programmed workflow.
> 
> 
> If the community likes this idea, I can spec it up into another grant
> proposal and submit that to the steering committee.

No -let's NOT formalise it.  

It ain't broke - don't fix it.

KISS!

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal UK LA8 8AB
[phone]