Vicente Botet wrote:
Hi Gennadiy,
* Some libraries come up without proper substantiation leading to review process and only being rejected by "lack of interest" argument
The author and the review manager should start already a review only if they have checked that the library has enough interest..
More formal procedure for people to second/support the submission would be helpful
* Some libraries comes not being ready for review. There is automatically checked list of requirements before scheduling the review.
This should be checked already by the review manager.
I guess. I was after a script that can perform basis automatic checks.
That's said, here's how better procedure might look like IMO. This will require some initial investment in writing scripts for process automation, but in a long run we should be very well compensated.
1. Any library author interrested in submission of new library should come to the "Candidate" page and register. Once registered candidate gets: a) svn repository for the library b) standardized page on boost website (something like boost.org/candidate/<candidate name> c) announcement post is sent automatically (with abstract and link to above page) to the mailing list.
If I've understood you are proposing a separate space from the sandbox. Isn't it?
I agree that it is better if people that pretend to be candidate to Boost use to use the Boost environment and tools.
Well Sandbox v.2.
Once review manager is assigned candidate page is transformed into "candidate review" page.
Who will assign the review manager?
The review wizards. Forgot the term.
7. If there is no review manager found within a year, the library is rejected due to lack of support.
This seems OK to me. A clarification of who can be the review manager will be needed.
There are two parts of review manager job, which in fact can be split. The first part is actually managing the review, including the checking of the formal requirements, making announcements, producing summaries (as per my suggestion), making decision about review start, review length, review stop. The second part is making the final decision. As I see it the first part does not require any particular experience and can be delegated to any one (even relative newcomer or someone nominated by library author). The second part is where we expect to have some authority in the matter. If review results are overwhelmingly positive or negative (like acceptance by 95% of reviewers, or rejection by more than 50-60%) the review result decision can be done automatically. In more complicated case we need another person(s) of authority. One option I see here is for the review manager (one who performs first step) to write detailed summary with final tally of votes and all major pro and con discussion points and allow review wizard(s) to make this final decision (or some new post, like review arbitrager). Gennadiy