"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto@cs.auc.dk> writes:
"John Torjo" <john.lists@torjo.com> wrote in message news:4140023B.2070608@torjo.com... | Thomas Wenisch wrote: | > On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, tom brinkman wrote: | > | > | >>With 10-15 days allocated per review and a 5-10 day buffer, we will be able | >>to review at-most 1 to 2 reviews per month or 12 to 24 libraries per year. | > | > | > A goal of 24 review per year strikes me as far too ambitious. I think 12 | > libraries is a more realistic goal (and allows for some dead time, such as | > right before a release, where no reviews are in progress). | > | | I second that. 12 reviews per year is quite enough.
I would rather see a number that reflects how big the libraries are. Some are small, some are huge.
In the past we have always chosen the length of review period based on the scope of the submission. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com