In-Reply-To: <chm2sp$bs9$1@sea.gmane.org> reportbase@yahoo.com (tom brinkman) wrote (abridged):
2) The current backlog of libraries to review is quite large.
How large? The schedule at: http://www.boost.org/more/formal_review_schedule.html is years out of date and I couldn't find an online schedule using google.
7) The reason for not having overalpping reviews is based on the preference for a flexible review schedule. This flexibility, however, has a large cost in terms of not being able to provide firm start dates for our library authors.
That partly depends on whether the current necessary adjustment is a once-off or a regular thing. I suppose if a review looks like going over time, we have 4 choices: (1) Give up and reschedule the review for later - presumably 6 or more months later if it goes to the back of the queue, so as not to upset published schedules. (2) Force the review to end on time anyway, with a hurried judgement. (3) Extend the review period, and reschedule subsequent reviews. (4) Extend the review period, and don't reschedule subsequent reviews. This is the option which may lead to overlap. None of which are ideal, of course, but to me the latter two seem better then the first two. I'm inclined to think (4) should be considered on a case by case basis. It would depend mainly on whether the same people would be reviewing both of the overlapping libraries. Or rather, whether the people who aim to review both can get the first one done in time. Is it fair to say that the people who review all submissions do so relatively shallowly and quickly? And the people who review in depth, only do so for submissions they are specifically interested in and/or have expertise about and/or an immediate real-world application for? -- Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK