John Phillips wrote:
Has anyone (other than Tom and Ron) looked at the review queue lately?
...
So, now the question. What can we do to improve the situation? Is anyone willing to sign on? Is there so little interest in the work the developers have done that we should say "Thanks for the effort, but we're not interested right now?" Some response is needed, in place of the silence we have seen so far.
John Phillips
Some of the responses so far convince me that we need to clear up confusion about what the qualifications are for a review manager. To some extent, this is a judgment call on the part of the Wizards, but it is also a reasonable topic of conversation for the whole community. I have no reason to consider my opinions definitive, but I'm the one who started this conversation so I shouldn't just lurk with my opinions. With that in mind, here are the qualifications that come to mind. This is not a complete list or proposal, since I haven't given the question enough thought for that, yet. Most of the points are self-evident enough that I don't think detailed explanations are needed. 1) Very familiar with the relevant parts of the language for the submission in question 2) At least solid working familiarity with the problem domain 3) Ability to draw technical content out of sometimes contentious discussions 4) Willingness to suspend personal preference enough to recognize the rationales and strengths of the arguments submitted by all reviewers 5) Time to commit to the review that is adequate for digesting and summarizing all the submissions 6) Solid written communications skills to prepare the summary 7) Familiarity with prior boost reviews, including submitting reviews and participating in the discussions about how to improve a library submission 8) Willingness to ask questions when the unusual arises 9) Ability to make a well reasoned decision at the end of the process, even in the cases where it will not make everyone happy That is a reasonable starting place from my perspective. What I do not think is necessary is that the manager have a history of successfully submitting libraries. While that is certainly a worthy qualification, many of the library authors just don't have time to also be the sole managers. Plus, managing a successful review is a different skill set from writing a successful library: especially in the case where the best available outcome for the review is a rejection that includes a clear critique and plan for how to improve the submission. John
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost