on Fri Nov 21 2008, John Phillips <phillips-AT-mps.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
Stjepan Rajko wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:52 AM, John Phillips <phillips@mps.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
Stjepan Rajko wrote:
[snip] 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
I don't want to discourage anyone who will do a good job of managing a review, but if we decide this is a necessary step in providing a good review then I'm not upset by discouraging anyone who won't do it.
I'm not sure just what's being proposed here (so this might be off-base), but it's important not to make anything unnecessarily burdensome. We need to rely on peoples' intelligence and sense of responsibility without making egregious rules. For example, a review manager should not -- in general -- need to do a comprehensive review herself; she has enough on her plate already. 95% of the time it should be enough to make a judgement based on the other reviews: both their votes and their quality, depth, etc. At the end of the review period, if she is truly left unsure whether the library should be accepted, a review manager might go through the process herself, but otherwise a comprehensive review from the manager should not be required. I think it would be good if the review wizards could make it clear that they are available to provide guidance in case review managers have questions about how to do their jobs well. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com