Beth Jacobson wrote:
My (perhaps naive) impression is that while reviews need an expert manager, much of the day-to-day work of managing a review (coordinating with the review wizard and library author, posting announcements, soliciting reviews, etc) doesn't require a great deal of expertise. Perhaps in addition to a review manager, there could be a review administrator, who would handle such tasks. The review manager would still need to read the submitted reviews and follow discussions about the library, but his/her actual work would be limited to giving advice and expert opinions to the review administrator as needed, working with the administrator on the results/TODO list, and acting as the final authority in contentious cases.
Lightening the manager's workload might increase the pool of available experts, while the administrator position would be a good way for aspiring review managers to gain experience and prove their ability handle such a job.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
For me, the things you are listing as the administrator's job are a very small part of the work. The real work is making sure I understand the content of the review well enough to generate the recommendation and todo list. Setting the schedule is a matter of a couple of emails. Posting the announcement takes a couple of minutes, tops. On a big review, with dissenting opinions, reading the content and checking for the best available answers has taken me several hours. If I had to coordinate that with an administrator to generate a joint report, I would expect the time to increase markedly. I think looking for ways to encourage more new managers and provide a training and proving ground for those who want to be managers is a good thing. I just don't think this approach will work for that. John