Eric Niebler wrote:
Peter Dimov wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
on Tue Jun 05 2007, Jody Hagins <jody-boost-011304-AT-atdesk.com> wrote:
The review manager does have a fair amount of authority, especially in reviews which are not clear cut one way or another. So, it can't just be given to anyone who asks... though maybe there should be some explanation given to those who are not picked, and maybe some kind of "training roadmap" provided for those interested. Great ideas.
It might be time to rethink this part of the Boost process as well. I'll start with one seemingly simple question:
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. It's a representative democracy, twice removed: we elect the review wizard, who elects the review managers, who elect the libraries. Which would make the review managers the electoral college. ;-)
Actually, I liken the process to more like that of a judge (review manager) deciding a law suit. Advocates for both sides present their cases, arguments, counter arguments etc. When the smoke clears, the judge renders his decision. In cases concerning law, he includes a legal opinion. The reviewer is a mostly disinterested party charged with application of the previously established rules. None of the advocates can play that role with a conflict of interest.
Another key job of the review manager is to collect all the feedback and present a TODO list to the author of the new Boost library, but that's secondary.
Hmm - like a judge passing a "probationary sentence" subject to conditions such as enter rehab. To make the analogy complete, a conditionally accepted library shouldn't be checked until the review manager OK's it. FWIW - I think the boost review process - including the desiganation on one specific person to be responsabe for the decision is a masterful accomplishment. It is: a) totally devoid of any pretense to being a democratic process. Votes don't count. Argument/Rationale do. Imagine if our court decisions were decided by voting. b) avoids compromise for compromise sake - this helps promote conceptual integrity in libraries. If there is anything sacred in boost - this has to be it. Robert Ramey