Dave Gomboc <dave@cs.ualberta.ca> writes:

] I suggest that such a requirement be added to the formal ] review process, with a specific (low, ie, 3) number of ] "formal seconds" required for a formal review request in ] order for it to reach the schedule. It should be explicitly ] noted that "seconding" a review request does not imply a vote ] to accept, nor a commitment on the part of the person ] seconding to participate in the review.

I also like the idea, but with a twist: it should be explicitly noted that seconding a review request _does_ imply a commitment to review the library should a review be scheduled for it.

It's a good idea, but I have to ask: is this a bicycle shed discussion? Does tweaking the seconding process really solve any of Thomas' problems? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com