From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-27 08:18:58
On Tuesday 27 January 2004 01:20 am, Thomas Wenisch wrote:
> This idea of seconding a review request is an extremely good idea. It
> adds formality to what is captured in the current process as "post to list
> and see if there is interest". The fact that someone seconds a review
> request demonstrates that there is interest in the library, and that there
> are people who are following the review list that might be inclined to
> review.
>
> 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. It just is an indication that a library is
> interesting and worthy of review (and worthy of consuming time on the
> schedule that could be used reviewing other libraries).
I too like the idea of seconding a formal review request, but I'd rather that
"seconding" imply that someone has looked over the library and found that it
is in reasonably good shape for a formal review. Otherwise, we'll still have
the problem Thomas W. is describing where a formal review is requested,
several people "second" because they are interested, but the formal review
won't happen because the library isn't ready.
Doug