Subject: Re: [boost] [review queue] What to do about the library review queue?
From: Zach Laine (whatwasthataddress_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-16 14:57:58
+1 to everything Micheal said.
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Michael Caisse via Boost <
> 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
> 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 Caisse
> Ciere Consulting
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk