Boost logo

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).
> 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?


> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:

Boost-users list run by williamkempf at, kalb at, bjorn.karlsson at, gregod at, wekempf at