Re: [Boost-users] [boost] tweaking the review process (was: signals2 review results)

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [boost] tweaking the review process (was: signals2 review results)
From: Stjepan Rajko (stjepan.rajko_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-21 13:17:39

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:52 AM, John Phillips
<phillips_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Stjepan Rajko wrote:
>> * the review manager being more active in examining the library before
>> the actual review
>>
>> About the latter - in both reviews I managed, there was a number of
>> issues (e.g., documentation shortfalls) that came up during the review
>> that I, as review manager, could have discussed privately with the
>> author beforehand had I done a more thorough review of the library.
>> These issues could have been fixed before a review was scheduled, and
>> the reviews could have been more focused on other issues.  The review
>> process page states: "The Review Manager... Checks the submission to
>> make sure it really is complete enough to warrant formal review.  See
>> the Boost Library Requirements and Guidelines. If necessary, work with
>> the submitter to verify the code compiles and runs correctly on
>> several compilers and platforms."
>>
>> Well, in both cases I had examined the library, tried it on several
>> compilers, read the docs, glanced at the implementation, etc.  But it
>> wasn't a thorough review.  I think, had I actually gone through the
>> reviewer's list of questions and wrote a full review, it would have
>> given the authors some idea of possible areas that can be improved
>> before the review (being careful not to react prematurely in possibly
>> contentious areas where the opinion of just one person is not enough).
>>  Doing something like this would require additional effort from the
>> review manager, but I think it would result in a much better review
>> (and one where it is possibly easier to make a decision because there
>> are fewer remaining problems).
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Stjepan
>
>  Do you think it would help if the Wizards stressed this need and requested
> an affirmation of it as part of the lead in to the review?
>

Definitely.  I'm not sure whether stressing this requirement would
turn off potential review managers because of the added effort, but I
think it would make the overall review process better.

Stjepan