Paul A Bristow wrote:
| I agree that the review text should become public. | | A reason for not submitting a review to the list would be that the | reviewer is not subscribed on it and doesn't intend to | subscribe (e.g. | an expert on the particular field covered by the library | under review | but without much interest for Boost in general). | | So instead of eliminating the opportunity to submit reviews | directly to | the review manager, I'd like to see adding of "who will then | forward the | review text to the mailing list" after "Privately to the | Review Manager".
I agree strongly with this - the expertise of the Boost group is thin in some fields, especially applications - like Math functions and statistics ;-)
It would be foolish to do anything to make getting comment from experts difficult.
Joinging the group is not totally hassle free.
But I also strongly agree that the text of their reviews must be made public.
(And their name, but not necessarily their email address which may thereby be exposed to spam).
Ok, I can be agreeable to this middle ground. However, be reminded that sending in a review is not the end of it. Typically, there will be discussions (many times extensive). It is not uncommon that the reviewer might have missed something that the author can fill in. Sometimes other people involved in the review might want further questions, or give rebuttals, etc. Someone must take the responsibility of being a conduit and ensure that the proper communication is not severed. At the very least, this type of review should be discouraged. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net