I would like to give my testimonial on this point... A few days ago I subscribed to this mailing list because I wanted to share with the boost community the results of my experiments with the random_on_sphere distribution. I uploaded a ready to read pdf file with the method, the results and a proposal to modify the current implementation (that is 20 times slower than it could be)... I expected a quick decision since I took the pain to make everything clear in the document. I did not understood anything to what happens here. I got some feedback from users of the mailing list and that's it! Nobody took the formal review in charge. First: Why should I subscribe to a mailing list to submit a proposal? Second Let's face it, there is very few users on this list in comparison to the interested people in boost. Third: People interested in boost do not have special interest to discuss on a mailing list. I think that you should setup a review process similar to scientific journal submissions. This mean: step 1: submit your proposal of new library to the Chief Editor (Tom or Ronald) step 2: the Chief Editor quickly look if the contribution worth a review and immediately feedback to the submitter step 3: If accepted for review, the Chief Editor delegate to an Associate Editor the managing of reviews step 4: The Associate Editor know trusted reviewers and personally ask if they want to review step 5: Each reviewers gives back their comments step 6: Based on the comments of the reviewers, the AE decide to accept, reject or ask modifications and feedback the submitter immediately Ok hope it helps... The current system with "Managers and Wizards" feel a lot of amateurism... Things should be changed and the formal review system of most scientific publications has proven to be efficient. It's easy to set up while the editors have a list of trusted potential reviewers (and there is hundreds of competent boost users around that could fulfil this). The key point is that: - The submitters and reviewers don't have to use the mailing list. (they don't have time for this anyway) - If the editor ask kindly for a review, chances are that the reviewer will accept it. Colas On 6/13/07, João Abecasis <jpabecasis@gmail.com> wrote:
It would be nice if we could devise a system that does not suffer from
Peter Dimov wrote: the
"silent rejection" problem: you input a review request (or a RM application) into it and receive no output back for months (or at all).
I think part of the "silent rejection" problem is the medium that is being used. In a mailing list it is just too easy to let a message slip by. Perhaps tracking review requests and RM applications in the ticketing system would help.
Anyway, it's just an idea.
Best regards,
João _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost