Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [review queue] What to do about the library review queue?
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-16 18:24:01

On 3/16/2017 10:49 AM, Michael Caisse via Boost wrote:
> 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 dislike the idea that if someone creates a worthy library as a
possible addition to Boost, and gets enough initial discussion so that
an addition to Boost's review queue of that library is made, that person
must continually promote that library so that there is enough interest
in Boost so that someone, anyone, is willing to be the review manager
for that library. Why should this always be necessary in the face of the
fact that very few of the people who contribute to Boost, via
discussions on this mailing list and work on various libraries or work
on other areas of the Boost infrastructure, are willing to be review
managers ? Certainly this situation is not the library submitter's
fault. BTW this situation, vis a vis being a review manager, is not in
any way a criticism of all those people who contribute to Boost and
neither have the time or inclination or interest to server as a review
manager for a library in the review queue.

I think Niall's post was simply to find a way to get a greater number of
people who contribute to Boost to be willing to be a review manager at
some time or other; and Robert Ramey's suggestion, among others, was
also a way to get more people who contribute to Boost to be willing to
be a review manager.

I know that you feel that 7 out of 22 is adequate. I do not want to
argue over such numbers, which are almost wholly subjective. My own
concern is the discouragement of those who submit a library to Boost,
find enough initial interest to get a library on the review queue, and
then never get a review because nobody is willing to serve as a review
manager for said library. That is not a good for Boost as a whole
because it turns off those who are willing to participate and Boost
needs people to maintain the high quality of its libraries.

> 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.

I disagree. It was hard enough to get a library on the review queue and
now the very people who did the work to develop a library, but who never
got a review because of the lack of review managers, are the ones being

I believe that more periodic notice ( maybe every other week or once a
month ) should list libraries on the review queue lacking a review
manager as a message on this mailing list. Also some sort of mailing
list of potential review managers at any one time should be kept, with
the ability to add or remove oneself from the list, so that an e-mail
can be sent out to those people on the list peridocially asking if
anyone wants to be a review manager for those listed libraries lacking one.

> 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.

I can totally respect the fact that potential review managers just are
not interested in any library on the review queue that does not have a
review manager. But I think that the paucity of those willing to be a
review manager for libraries is still the problem.

> michael

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at