Oliver Kowalke wrote:
Am 27.12.2010 21:05, schrieb Vladimir Prus:
Dean Michael Berris wrote:
4. Change the review process instead from a submission->review->inclusion process that's rigidly scheduled to one that is less rigid and is more fluid.
I think that the current review process is actually good.
How much libs are in the review queue and how long are they waiting for a review (my libs are waiting for more than one year)? The review process is very slow and could be much faster (at least for me).
- Yes it could. I get the impression that the review process is not actively driven -- in particular, I'm sure that if past review managers were contacted and asked if they would be willing to review something again, we'd have quite some slots in the schedule filled in. - Given that somebody still should decide that include your library in the official release, you still depend on active 'somebody'. - Even now, nothing prevents you from publishing your library for anybody to try. Am I missing something? Thanks, Volodya