On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:52 AM, John Phillips
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