Re: [Aedis] Formal Review: We could have done better

From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-01-26 07:57:25

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 at 00:59, Vinnie Falco <vinnie.falco_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 1:21 PM Mateusz Loskot via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > There review submission is not an one chance in lifetime attempt.
> > ...
> > So, I wouldn't use words like disservice and failure
>
> I disagree. Writing a review is a significant investment of effort and
> we need all the reviews we can get. It wastes reviewers' time when
> they have to review the same library twice. I think everyone would
> agree that when someone re-reviews a library it will not quite live up
> to the same level of energy and thoughtfulness as the original review.
> Some reviewers will not bother with a second review (this happens
> every time, re-reviews get less engagement).

My view is that most of reviewers are (assumed to be) also prospect
users (with knowledge of technology or domain a library is about)
who are also keenly interested in using the library under review.
Hence, they are also keenly interested to review the improved library again
as they take it as an opportunity to shape the library they are going to use.

It could be that my view is based on incorrect observations and
wrong assumptions. Then, well, it's only cows who never change
their opinion.

Best regards,
-- 
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net