Peter Dimov wrote:
The idea is that the knowledge needs to come from the reviewers, not from the tie-breaker person. Anybody qualified and willing to act as a review manager will obviously be qualified and willing to write a review, but the converse is - as we are observing - not necessarily true. If the review process does not produce a sufficiently solid case for acceptance, the library is rejected. It is the responsibility of the submitter to present his/her case citing reviews as supporting material such that the busy tie-breaker person/group is able to make a quick decision.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Who checks to see if the submitter is presenting a fair picture of the review? If it is no one, then there is the chance (hopefully rare) that the submitter will present a skewed version of what happened in the review. If it is one person, that person is the de-facto review manager, since that person has the single largest responsibility of the review manager (checking all the reviews and determining the best available recommendation). If it is the whole tie-breaker group, then there are many people doing the work that used to be done by one. If it is supposed to come from the participants, then the discussion of the submitter's version of the review becomes another review and little is gained (if anything). To me, the biggest responsibility of the review manager is to be someone who understands the domain but has no personal stake in whether the library passes or fails. That gives as good a chance at an objective and complete final report as is possible, while only taking up one person's time. John