On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 17:44:59 +0200, Thorsten Ottosen wrote
"tom brinkman" <reportbase@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:chm2sp$bs9$1@sea.gmane.org... | The current schedule allows ten days for each review. | It has been brought to my attention that this is too aggressive. | For the next couple of reviews, I will contact the library review managers | to arrange new start dates to allow for longer review periods and to also | ensure that they do not overlap. In my next status report, I will explain | this change in the schedule and try to contact the remaining library | authors for new start dates. | | My Concerns: | 1) The review process is slow.
yeah, this is the problem.
Well, I don't see the 'slowness' as a problem. I think we have a problem because we have a backlog of submissions. There were some significant periods where reviews didn't keep up with the pace of submissions and now we have a bunch of catch-up to do. My only suggestion for shortening the formal review period would be to somehow encourage or develop reviews of libraries in advance -- thus reducing the amount of comment during the formal review. Anyone can go review boost::fsm, just to pick one, and go review the code and docs and post it to the list. The problem is, however, there is an additional dynamic during the formal review -- reviewers read other reviews and discuss them. Perhaps if there was a way of gathering review comments over a longer period (via wiki page or something) we could shorten this last phase. In a different dimension, the backlog is good thing -- I'm personally heartened to see a raft of useful libraries being brought to boost. Boost has been a must-have for c++ programmers for quite awhile now, but it's starting to kick into high gear now.
I could accept review overlaps if it became the review managers job to put together a group of people guaranteed to make a review. The size of this group would depend on the library's size.
I think this is very difficult to do practically... Jeff