Jaakko Järvi <jarvi <at> cs.tamu.edu> writes:
Establishing a "library review committee" by some means before a review, and announcing it when the review begins might create a stronger commitment.
One approach can be based on these ideas: Instead of dedicated library review period we can have unlimited review period. Library review should start at some point (more in this later) by review manager announcing library for review. Within some predefined period (1-2 weeks) at least N (5?) people should confirm upcoming review submission. If threshold is not meat library immediately rejected, though can be resubmitted once again later (as usual). If threshold is meat these people form library review committee. After that review can be submitted. There is no predefined review period (maybe only some lower bound). Until all people in review committee submit their review it will continue. It's responsibility of review manager to keep track of that and bug them if necessary. Everyone else are welcome to post reviews as well. The maybe some provision to avoid indefinite wait, but it should be in a form of exception clause. Under this conditions we can have multiple reviews running the same time. Boost site should announce all libraries currently under review. Review wizard will throttle the load and order libraries review in an order of submission and review author/manager availability. Review wizard might have an authority to stop any review (if it takes too long for a example) Gennadiy