-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Niall Douglas Sent: 03 June 2015 11:04 To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: [boost] Formalising the review process into a well specified workflow (was: Re: [Boost-announce] [metaparse] Review period star
On 3 Jun 2015 at 5:07, Rob Stewart wrote:
At this point, everyone is agreed to proceed, so this will be a lesson for future library submitters and review managers.
I think that is exactly the wrong conclusion to draw, and the past drawing of that conclusion had led to us repeating, yet again, an unpleasant and inefficient review compared to what it should have been. No wonder the review pipeline ground to a halt in the past, everyone just gets put off.
A much better conclusion to draw is this:
1. There is more than one kind of library peer review:
a. "I'm working on this new library, I would like to hear comments on it"
b. "I have this preexisting mature library which I would like to add to Boost, is Boost interested in it?"
c. "I have an idea for a new library, would Boost be interested in it?"
d. "I have finished this library and I believe it is ready to enter Boost"
Also:
e. "I have substantially refactored an existing Boost library into a breaking change which affects other Boost libraries"
2. Different types of library review have different procedures, so essentially:
a => Incubator b => Formal Review, no Review Manager c => boost-dev mailing list d => Formal Review, needs Review Manager e => Whatever the maintainer thinks best
3. Different kind of library review should have detailed, step by step, "tick box" formalised procedures (formal workflow) to take the (prospective) library author from where they begin to a successfully completed conclusion with a minimum of inefficiency.
4. There is no shortage of free web tooling which can automate the ticking of those boxes and walk library authors through the formalised procedure. Indeed, Boost already is on Google Apps, and Google Forms is one of the best free web tooling for forms. Unlike most other Boost infrastructure needs (hint - is my volunteering to upgrade Trac approved? If so, a ball needs to start rolling) where our infrastructure requirements simply aren't there yet, for Forms and workflow programming we are ready to go.
5. Ideally in the future a review manager would have their own form with boxes to tick, and part of their form would be to check the form the library author filled in i.e. the forms themselves feed into one another as part of the programmed workflow.
If the community likes this idea, I can spec it up into another grant proposal and submit that to the steering committee.
No -let's NOT formalise it. It ain't broke - don't fix it. KISS! Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830