Re: [boost] [review queue] Proposed new policy to enter the review queue

Subject: Re: [boost] [review queue] Proposed new policy to enter the review queue
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-16 21:38:52

On 3/16/17 1:47 PM, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:

> Here is my proposal:
>
> 2. For a library to enter the review queue in future, it requires at
> least one (and preferably more) named members of the Boost community to
> publicly endorse the library to enter the review queue. Their names will
> be listed alongside the library in the review queue page at
> http://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html.
>
> 3. Endorsing a library has NO RELATION to review managing a library.
> Indeed if only one person endorses a library for review, they are not
> permitted to act as review manager.
>
> 4. To find someone to endorse a new library for review, the library
> author ought to ideally canvas for a library's motivation before they
> ever begin writing or designing it, but failing that they need to
> approach boost-dev and publicise their library seeking someone to
> publicly endorse it for review. Other forums work too e.g. reddit/r/cpp,
> the Incubator or anywhere else. Ideally I'd prefer if the Incubator
> *was* the place where people endorsed a library for review and their
> name automatically was added to the review queue page, but I appreciate
> that's a lot of scripting.

I think the scripting is already in there. I think you could just say - 
in order to be officially reviewed it has to have two reviews in the 
incubator.

> I am personally highly unsure of Robert's suggestion (he claims it was
> mine, it was not) that every author of a library entering the queue
> needs to review manage a library first.

Sorry. I thought that was your proposal.  It's a worthy proposal in any 
case.

> The above proposed policy effectively pushes the bottleneck higher up
> the chain, but I think that's no bad thing. Library authors, myself
> included, like to build cathedrals irrespective of whether anyone will
> ever use them nor appreciate them. Currently it's too easy to build a
> library nobody will ever use and get it into the review queue where it
> will languish for many years because no review manager will touch it.
> That part needs to change.

All this was/is behind the design of the inclubator.  The idea was that 
reviewers who downloaded a library from incubator would try it out - 
likely because they needed it - and write a review.  Sort of like 
Amazon.  This would
a) decouple reviews from 10 day review period.
b) give authors earlier feedback - which they desperately need.
c) automatically filter out bad and/or inconsequential ideas.
d) increase the number of reviews available
e) thereby making the review manager's job much easier.
f) provide a cool netflix style rating for different aspects of the 
library if a library has garnered 5 or more reviews

In addition it would provide a permanent chain of comments documenting 
the history and resolved/unresolved with the library.

There are some 40? libraries posted and I'm happy about that.  But I'm 
disappointed it hasn't had any noticeable impact on the review 
situation.  That might be helped by improving it, but I'd probably not 
be motivated without a little bit more success.  And improvements WOULD 
require significant scripting - which is agony for me.  I'd like to see:

a) The comment mechanism transformed into a window into the developer's 
list.
b) A method to clone a library directly from incubator.  This would give 
me statistics on the number of people who have downloaded the libary.  I 
could also likely capture the email address so I could automatically bug 
them to review the library.  I think both of these would be helpful

So that's where we are on that.

Robert Ramey