Am Tuesday 17 November 2009 20:32:22 schrieb Andreas Huber:
"John Phillips" <phillips@mps.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:hdt4vf$ufm$1@ger.gmane.org...
As for scheduling a joint review: That was tried with the Thread Pool libraries and I heard many comments from people who were not happy reviewing two at once and no one who was happy. This included the review manager, the library authors and some of the reviewers.
Actually, I don't care much how the review periods are scheduled (lib1 first, lib2 first or joint), but I still think we should somehow ensure that we end up with at most one logging library. I don't see a better way than giving the reviewers only three choices (accept lib 1, accept lib 2, reject both) instead of four. For the unlikely case of a draw a special procedure could be put in place.
Thoughts?
one review manager for both libraries, even if there are seperate review periods. as far as I know the review manager isn't bound to the "votes" anyway, so he should be able to summarize all the problems people see in either library and suggest a way to address those, be it by accepting one of the two libraries, merging them, or rejecting both.