Re: [boost] [review queue] What to do about the library review queue?

Subject: Re: [boost] [review queue] What to do about the library review queue?
From: Michael Caisse (mcaisse-lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-16 14:49:54

On 3/15/17 13:26, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
> On 3/14/17 2:53 PM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
>> All correct.  This suggestion has been floating around since at least
>> 2010.  I think it's time to implement it.  I propose the following text
>> to be placed in the appropriate place.
>>
>> "Only those who have managed a boost review can expect their library
>> submissions to be to be reviewed."
>>
>> This clearly states the rule and allows for some exceptions.
> 
> OK - I've endorsed one of Naill's ideas in the form of the above
> suggestion.
> 
> a) I think it's simple to implement.
> b) if it doesn't work it's simple to retract.
> c) We've had the normal back and forth about it - with the usual number
> of tangents and side tracts and I don't see a strong argument against at
> least trying it out.
> 
> So let's try this out.
> 
> The only thing is I don't have any idea who has the authority to
> implement this.  The Review Wizard could just start implementing it on
> his own - though I'm not sure he'd be comfortable with that.  So I'll
> guess that its the steering committee.  I'll send them a copy.
> 
> Robert Ramey
> 

(without my committee hat on)

This implies that the  problem is a lack of review managers. I see my
other email wasn't replied to. Perhaps because it is easier to talk
about review managers. So let me sum up my other response to see if we
can get some discussion here:

* 7 of 22 libraries in the queue have review managers assigned.
  One-third isn't great but it isn't a disaster.
* Those 7 libraries with managers could represent back-to-back
  reviews for the next 2 - 4 months.
* Libraries with a manager and no review date often represent a
  library that isn't completely ready to go. Part of the job of the
  manager is to ensure that the library is ready. This could be an
  indicator that the system is working.
* Libraries with a manager and no review date can also mean that
  finding a date is complicated.
* (both of the above observations are from personal experience)
* Not having a review manager might be an indicator of not enough
  interest in a library. It is the job of the author to ensure there
  is enough interest by the community. Perhaps the author hasn't done
  enough promotion. Maybe more solicitation on the ML is required or
  perhaps people just don't find the solution interesting. One person
  saying, "that sounds like a neat library!" shouldn't constitute
  interest.

I don't have time right now to go back through the history of items in
the review queue to determine if interest from the community was
determined before the library was placed on the list. Just producing a
library that the author finds interesting and useful doesn't make it a
candidate for Boost.

I'd like to see a purging of the queue before we get all excited about
finding managers.

* If a library doesn't have a manager, remove it from the queue.
* Authors take the pulse of the community to determine interest.
* If there is interest, the library gets placed back in the queue
  and solicitation of a manager can begin.

Lets not try and fix non-problems. Maybe review managers are a problem
but I'm not convinced. Why am I not convinced? Because of candid
discussions with past managers who had the same feeling as me: "I'm just
not interested in any of the libraries in the queue."  You will note
that has obviously changed for me in the past few months.

michael

-- 
Michael Caisse
Ciere Consulting
ciere.com