I tried to contact the review wizards via their e-mail addresses to update some information on the Boost Formal Review Schedule page at http://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html but have heard nothing in response. I appreciate that they have a hard job to do for which most people would not want the responsibility. But it does seem to me, either by plan or because there appear to be no people willing to act as review managers, that the Boost formal review process has completely bogged down for some time now. Since I am interested in getting my own library reviewed I would like to volunteer to act as a Review Manager for other libraries. I have no particular library in mind but I am pretty knowledgeable and interested in some of the ideas of libraries on the review schedule. I have been a Review Manager for a past library and think I did a pretty good job. At the same time I am looking for a review manager for my Variadic Macro Data library. Unfortunately the link to it on the web page above is wrong. It is now on GitHub at https://github.com/eldiener/variadic_macro_data. Edward Diener
On 9 Oct 2013 at 19:47, Edward Diener wrote:
I tried to contact the review wizards via their e-mail addresses to update some information on the Boost Formal Review Schedule page at http://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html but have heard nothing in response. I appreciate that they have a hard job to do for which most people would not want the responsibility. But it does seem to me, either by plan or because there appear to be no people willing to act as review managers, that the Boost formal review process has completely bogged down for some time now.
It hasn't been announced yet, but I'll be the review manager for proposed Boost.TypeIndex by Antony Polukhin. Peer review is hoped for sometime shortly after Nov 11th, and I'll shortly be writing to all the maintainers of the Boost libraries affected by TypeIndex's addition. You're right that there is a lack of review manager volunteers. I am lucky to have a "free month" before I relocate from KW to somewhere else in the world which will employ me. If I were still working at BlackBerry, I'm not sure if I could commit the effort needed, especially after the marathon which was GSoC. Such is life in the contemporary western working world.
Since I am interested in getting my own library reviewed I would like to volunteer to act as a Review Manager for other libraries. I have no particular library in mind but I am pretty knowledgeable and interested in some of the ideas of libraries on the review schedule. I have been a Review Manager for a past library and think I did a pretty good job.
I shortlisted those in the queue down to three I felt competent enough to judge. This wasn't done lightly, I looked into each library in the queue in some depth, and I'll freely admit that any without Boost styled and formatted documentation instantly got ruled out. I'd suggest you do the same, and suggest yourself with that shortlist to Ron who will probably assign you whichever of that shortlist has been waiting the longest. Niall -- Currently unemployed and looking for work. Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/
On 10/9/2013 8:15 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
On 9 Oct 2013 at 19:47, Edward Diener wrote:
I tried to contact the review wizards via their e-mail addresses to update some information on the Boost Formal Review Schedule page at http://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html but have heard nothing in response. I appreciate that they have a hard job to do for which most people would not want the responsibility. But it does seem to me, either by plan or because there appear to be no people willing to act as review managers, that the Boost formal review process has completely bogged down for some time now.
It hasn't been announced yet, but I'll be the review manager for proposed Boost.TypeIndex by Antony Polukhin. Peer review is hoped for sometime shortly after Nov 11th, and I'll shortly be writing to all the maintainers of the Boost libraries affected by TypeIndex's addition.
You're right that there is a lack of review manager volunteers. I am lucky to have a "free month" before I relocate from KW to somewhere else in the world which will employ me. If I were still working at BlackBerry, I'm not sure if I could commit the effort needed, especially after the marathon which was GSoC. Such is life in the contemporary western working world.
Since I am interested in getting my own library reviewed I would like to volunteer to act as a Review Manager for other libraries. I have no particular library in mind but I am pretty knowledgeable and interested in some of the ideas of libraries on the review schedule. I have been a Review Manager for a past library and think I did a pretty good job.
I shortlisted those in the queue down to three I felt competent enough to judge. This wasn't done lightly, I looked into each library in the queue in some depth, and I'll freely admit that any without Boost styled and formatted documentation instantly got ruled out. I'd suggest you do the same, and suggest yourself with that shortlist to Ron who will probably assign you whichever of that shortlist has been waiting the longest.
If I did not get any answer from Ron previously, when I asked the review wizards to update some information on the review schedule, why should I think they would reply if I offered to review a particular library ? It does sound to me as if they are just not responding to e-mails sent to them.
On 10 Oct 2013 at 15:29, Edward Diener wrote:
If I did not get any answer from Ron previously, when I asked the review wizards to update some information on the review schedule, why should I think they would reply if I offered to review a particular library ? It does sound to me as if they are just not responding to e-mails sent to them.
They responded to me just fine, albeit that John's email address on the website is malformed. I think that shortlisting the libraries shows you've done due dilligence, especially as you need to really understand a library's domain to review manage it. For example I would call myself competent to review manage only these three libraries out of all those in the queue: * TypeIndex * Countertree * Process Moreover I would be absolutely useless to review manage Boost.QVM for example. Not my field of expertise. Couldn't tell you anything useful about what it ought to be or not. So, try again and demonstrate you've done your homework. I'm sure then you'll get a response. Niall -- Currently unemployed and looking for work. Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/
On 10/10/2013 6:08 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
On 10 Oct 2013 at 15:29, Edward Diener wrote:
If I did not get any answer from Ron previously, when I asked the review wizards to update some information on the review schedule, why should I think they would reply if I offered to review a particular library ? It does sound to me as if they are just not responding to e-mails sent to them.
They responded to me just fine, albeit that John's email address on the website is malformed.
I never heard back and the changes I requested on the review schedule page have not been made.
I think that shortlisting the libraries shows you've done due dilligence, especially as you need to really understand a library's domain to review manage it. For example I would call myself competent to review manage only these three libraries out of all those in the queue:
* TypeIndex * Countertree * Process
Moreover I would be absolutely useless to review manage Boost.QVM for example. Not my field of expertise. Couldn't tell you anything useful about what it ought to be or not.
So, try again and demonstrate you've done your homework. I'm sure then you'll get a response.
I will wait until after the 1.55 release is officially out. Whether the review wizards are temporarily not responding because they are busy or are permanently not paying attention will no doubt eventually be discovered. But I do worry that there are many libraries, beside my own, on the review schedule, but effectively nothing is happening with them and they review process seems to have ended for a long time now. I think that is a bad idea, not because Boost "needs" more libraries but because a large part of the impetus in being involved in Boost is for those, like myself, whose creative joy is implementing some useful library and having that recognized by others.
participants (2)
-
Edward Diener -
Niall Douglas