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: Deniz Bahadir (dbahadir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-17 10:30:18

Am 17.03.2017 um 11:10 schrieb Deniz Bahadir via Boost:
> Am 16.03.2017 um 22:38 schrieb Robert Ramey via Boost:
>> 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
>>
>
> I think, the idea behind the Boost Library Incubator is great. However,
> it probably should be advertised better.
> But I do not mean that Robert should tell the people more about it via
> the boost-mailing list. (He is already doing a good job doing that.)
> Instead, I would prefer a tighter coupling between the Boost website and
> the Boost Library Incubator website.
>
> Just looking at it from a more outside point of view I would say:
> The Boost website does not look sexy.
>
> It looks quite old-fashioned, has a lot of text, but how that is
> structured is not easy to grasp by a short glimpse. And except for
> finding the current download and the list of current libraries it is
> quite hard to find particular information fast (if at all). (The GSOC)

I was going to say: The GSoC-students seem to have similar problems 
finding all the information they need. (There is a "Google Summer of 
Code" link under the "Community" menu on the Boost-website but from 
there I did not find the current GSoC project-page of Boost. A 
Google-search found it instead.)

>
> For example, I just tried to find a reference to the Boost Library
> Incubator from the Boost website. I did not succeed. I thought, there
> must be a link somewhere (and there probably is) but I did not manage to
> find it. (Even when using the search-functionality I only got references
> to e-mails on boost mailing-lists that mentioned it.)
> If it would be advertised more prominently on the website it might get
> more attention.
>
> Or another example is Trac. It is really ugly and leaves the impression
> that not many issues are worked on. (We had this topic already in this
> mail-discussion.)
> (A short anecdote: When I first tried to use (= report issues to)
> Boost-Trac some years ago the website's response was so slow that it
> felt like being down. Luckily, these problems seem to be solved for some
> time now.)
>
> There is a reason, Github is so successful and people are using it (and
> in general prefer using it) despite the fact that Git is popular:
> It is easy to use _and_ it looks sexy.
>
> Probably, it would be a good idea to use some of the money Boost has to
> pay a professional web-designer to create a new, easier to use and
> appealing (aka "sexy") website. And then it should probably directly
> integrate the Boost Library Incubator.
> And if it were possible to rate the libraries (from the Incubator) with
> a simple (star-)system and allow reviews/comments directly via the
> website (both similar to Amazon) it would probably gather more interest.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
> Deniz Bahadir
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost