Eric Niebler wrote:
Peter Dimov 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 potential for a nasty situation. And that one person has to be qualified for his/her opinion to carry weight.
My (perhaps naive) impression is that while reviews need an expert manager, much of the day-to-day work of managing a review (coordinating with the review wizard and library author, posting announcements, soliciting reviews, etc) doesn't require a great deal of expertise. Perhaps in addition to a review manager, there could be a review administrator, who would handle such tasks. The review manager would still need to read the submitted reviews and follow discussions about the library, but his/her actual work would be limited to giving advice and expert opinions to the review administrator as needed, working with the administrator on the results/TODO list, and acting as the final authority in contentious cases. Lightening the manager's workload might increase the pool of available experts, while the administrator position would be a good way for aspiring review managers to gain experience and prove their ability handle such a job.