2011/5/3 Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>:
Barend Gehrels wrote:
On 30-4-2011 18:39, Vladimir Prus wrote:
Chad Nelson wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 19:00:14 +0300 Vladimir Prus<vladimir@codesourcery.com> wrote:
Votes =====
YES:
- Christian Henning - Steven Watanabe - Jarrad Waterloo - Edward Diener - Paul A. Bristow Also Christopher Jefferson, Ivan Sorokin, Barend Gehrels, and Artyom Beilis, and a "conditional yes" from Robert Stewart. Sorry for missing those. It seems like last four were missed because I was reviewing email in two sessions, and apparently some emails were marked as read in between. Also I've missed the vote from Christopher since it was on a line that started with the "quote" (">") character.
Sorry to react on this, but I feel this is not as it should be (even if apologies and reasons are given).
It seems that 5 of 10 positive reviews had not been read at all by the review manager, or at least not read during making up the review report.
Thanks for giving me the benefit of doubt, and I think it's the latter than happened -- that is, emails were read, but not written down in the report.
This is not very motivating for the reviewers, neither for the library writer.
I understand that the traffic was really high, that review managers do this voluntary, everybody don't have all the time, etc.
Reviews are usually carefully written. People spend several hours on it, sometimes days. Skipping these reviews is a sad thing. Writing a library cost weeks, sometimes months or more. Forgetting reviews is a very sad thing.
There was somebody who recently mentioned a scoreboard on this list and I now think this is a good idea, because the review manager can check if all reviews are taken into account.
I second Barend's concerns and remarks. This should not happen so often. A simple way to avoid this accident is to check with the contributor about the vote count. They usually count extremely precise. Regards, Joachim -- Interval Container Library [Boost.Icl] http://www.joachim-faulhaber.de