On 3/27/2011 8:53 PM, dsimcha wrote:
From observing the review processes for std.parallelism and std.net.isemail, I
think our review process needs some tweaking. There are two key issues:
1. The pace of reviews is glacial unless there's a vote date near. Only 4 people
have reviewed std.net.isemail, and that's counting any participation in the
discussion as "review". This module doesn't have a vote date yet. IIRC only two
people reviewed std.parallelism during its first two weeks of review.
Furthermore, it took some time after I requested review for the "official"
review period to start. As a solution all requests for review should come with a
tentative vote date to prevent the module from being held in limbo indefinitely
and move the review queue along.
I know that reviews can be frustratingly slow. It's mainly because we have a
smallish community.
2. Reviews that prompt major changes right before the vote date are stressful. A
looming deadline is not conducive to careful discussion and consideration of
suggestions, especially those that are non-trivial to understand and/or
implement.
I propose that all review periods last one week for small modules or two weeks
for large modules, subject to extension if the review process is still yielding
good discussion near the vote date or "stashing" if the author needs time to
discuss specific issues that were raised and/or design and implement changes.
When a module is stashed, it is no longer officially in review and the next item
in the review queue, if any, can begin the process. As soon as this item is
done, review of the stashed item is resumed. Right now, std.parallelism is
stashed until std.net.isemail is finished.
To prevent the community from being overwhelmed, multiple reviews may not take
place concurrently but a review may take place concurrently with a vote.
Contention for the review queue is an issue in theory, but that's a problem we'd
like to have and can work out on an ad-hoc basis should it arise.
More specifically, the pace of reviews for std.net.isemail has been glacial. If
everyone who intends to review it has done so, we should move on to a vote. If
anyone intends to review this module but hasn't yet, please do so or at least
state your intention to do so.
Different people have interests in different things. I don't think a person
interested in std.parallelism would necessarily have any interest in
std.net.isemail, and vice versa, so those can be done in parallel (!).
A further issue with the review process is that the bulk of people won't look at
something until it is actually released. I think the only way to deal with this
is to be willing to correct deficiencies found after release.
