Re: Review Manager Volunteers

From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2025-04-18 08:30:54

On 18 Apr 2025 04:51, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> Andrey Semashev wrote:
>> On 18 Apr 2025 01:01, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 4:05 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost
>>> <boost_at_[hidden] <mailto:boost_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     On 17 Apr 2025 20:40, Matt Borland via Boost wrote:
>>>     >
>>>     > I would like to ask what are the showstoppers that keep you from
>>>     wanting to be a review manager? Time, Training, Recognition, none of
>>>     the above?
>>>
>>>     I think the requirement to be an expert or at least very knowledgeable
>>>     in the problem domain is a big part of why. Personally, I do not see
>>>     myself qualified to judge on the qualities of the recently proposed
>>>     libraries.
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree, and.. I've wondered about that requirement. Is it really
>>> needed? If an established Boost developer has a good amount of
>>> professional experience they are likely to be able to tackle most
>>> programming domains at the level needed for managing a review. Should
>>> we reconsider that requirement? For example I would consider myself to
>>> know enough to manage the Bloom review. But...
>>
>> Given that the review manager is the one solely responsible for deciding
>> whether a library deserves acceptance, it would be strange not to require a
>> certain, fairly high level of expertise.
> 
> The domain-specific expertise should come from the reviewers; the review
> manager should (minimally) just be qualified enough to evaluate the reviews.

Reviewers are allowed to be less familiar with the domain, and in fact
may not be familiar at all. There were plenty examples of such,
including myself in the recent Boost.Hash2 review. The review manager's
job is to weigh the quality and relevance of the reviews, and to be able
to do that the review manager has to be at least as qualified as the
reviewers, very preferably more. In fact, the review manager is within
rights to discard a review from consideration if he believes it is
inadequate.

Reviews are supposed to indicate public opinion of the library and
highlight pitfalls and strengths of the proposed solution. They *help*
the review manager to reach a conclusion, but given the lack of useful
reviews the review manager should be capable to reach it *on his own*.
He may refuse to do so e.g. due to excessive responsibility, but
technically it is a possibility.

It is not a mere formality that a review manager volunteers and must be
accepted by the library author. The acceptance means that the author
trusts that the review manager is qualified enough to evaluate the
library and the reviews and come up with a fair decision in the end.

> General C++ expertise is more important for the review manager because
> he is supposed to help the submitter prepare the library so that it's
> suitable for Boost.

While important, I see this as a less important part of the review
manager's work, compared to making the final decision. That is what
matters most.