Boost Users :
Subject: Re: [Boost-users] tweaking the review process (was: signals2 review results)
From: John Phillips (phillips_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-21 12:52:01
Stjepan Rajko wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:00 AM, Paul Baxter <pauljbaxter_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:40 PM, vicente.botet <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> I would like to make some suggestion to improve the review management:
>> <valid points snipped>
>> Whilst I understand your points, unlike our day job, people do have other
>> more pressing commitments and, for many, the extensive effort given to
>> reviewing boost libraries is time given in an ad-hoc manner.
>> Whilst it is good to have the timetable and a specific method for submitting
>> reviews, I don't think we need to go further and be more regimented. The
>> existing flexibility is a positive part of the process, IMHO.
> I also tend to prefer flexibility when people are volunteering their time.
>> [ I do have problems with some libraries actually getting to the point of
>> review before interest, maturity of interface or implementation are right,
>> but that doesn't apply here and has been covered in previous discussions.]
> I think I was guilty of this / have been bit by this myself.
> Anyway, there are two things that I think can help here:
> * requiring a certain number of committed reviewers before scheduling a review
> * 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).
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?
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost-users list run by williamkempf at hotmail.com, kalb at libertysoft.com, bjorn.karlsson at readsoft.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, wekempf at cox.net