Peter Dimov wrote:
Eric Niebler wrote:
Eric Niebler wrote:
Peter Dimov wrote:
Why do we need a review manager at all? Primarily to avoid any questions or doubts about whether a library should be accepted or not. The review manager supposedly takes everybody's feedback into account, but makes the ultimate yes/no decision, and is even free to buck popular opinion. Do so many of our reviews end in such a non-conclusive manner as to require a decision from a review manager? It's irrelevant that it doesn't happen often. If it happens EVER and we don't have one person designated to break the tie, there's the
Peter Dimov wrote: potential for a nasty situation. And that one person has to be qualified for his/her opinion to carry weight.
It is not irrelevant at all. If disputes only occur one time in a hundred, there is no need to recruit 100 volunteer review managers just because one of them might need to break a tie. We can just say "Eric Niebler breaks ties if they occur" and carry on.
That's a terrible system! I'd rather you do it. :-) I would have been a very bad person to break a tie in the ASIO review, for instance. I know very little about network programming. The idea is that the tie-breaker person for any review should have some domain knowledge and can make an informed decision, should it be necessary. There is no one person qualified to break ties in every possible domain. -- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com