On 2/20/2011 7:58 PM, Gordon Woodhull wrote:
On Feb 20, 2011, at 2:24 PM, Edward Diener wrote:
On 2/20/2011 12:12 PM, Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
2011/2/19 Edward Diener<eldiener@tropicsoft.com>:
On 2/19/2011 3:57 PM, Gordon Woodhull wrote:
Ed, you volunteered to be a review manager about a month ago. Have you approached any of the authors of prospective libraries on http://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html who are listed as needing review managers?
I was told to contact the review wizards and offer up my services to review libraries. I did so, and mentioned the libraries I felt I could review. As I understand it, it was then up to the review wizards to determine whether I was qualified to review a library and to contact me about doing so if they thought that I was. I was not subsequently contacted.
!! This is at least delicate and definitely "not amusing". (1) Ed volunteered to be Review Manager for a couple of libs (2) Ed is around in the Boost community for quite some time including BoostCon
I have to correct that. I have never been to BoostCon.
I object to the idea that going to BoostCon makes one a better member of the community. While BoostCon is truly amazing and I'm glad to have seen and heard people, proving oneself helpful and knowledgeable enough to manage a review happens right here on the list, and in the code. snipped...
It would also almost assuredly mean that the review manager would have little personal bias approving or not approving a library for inclusion into Boost at the end of the review process.
You seem to be hoping that the system can ensure objectivity. But you are talking about a group of very passionate, brilliant programmers! Of course the review manager is going to have opinions.
[Case in point: Christophe Henry, who is using my library MPL.Graph, has volunteered to manage the review. Of course he is going to be biased toward acceptance, but I don't doubt that he'll be objective enough to take any No votes or Conditions on Acceptance seriously.]
But I've never seen someone maliciously volunteer to manage a review because they wanted to reject the library, although I've seen review managers reluctantly vote against the library. Generally if a library is rejected the author is encouraged to rewrite and resubmit, and they could certainly request a different review manager the next time.
I am more concerned that a review manager will tend to approve of a library in which he has a vested interest than that a library will be rejected because a review manager is being malicious in any way.
Cheer up, this is a friendly place, if strongly opinionated. Everyone wants you to do your best work.
Good programmers are strongly opinionated ? Heaven forfend ! <g>