std.uni was recently accepted for inclusion in Phobos, and as far as I'm aware there are no reviews currently in progress.

We currently have a backlog of several modules that are ready for comments or review[1]. There seems to be no real schedule for starting reviews other than "when someone pushes for it".

I'm ready to start a discussion on a D lexer module I've written for inclusion in Phobos. There are several modules in line ahead of mine, so I'm willing to hold off on this if the authors of those other modules are ready for review.

[1] http://wiki.dlang.org/Review_Queue

On Thursday, 6 June 2013 at 19:50:51 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
> std.uni was recently accepted for inclusion in Phobos, and as far as I'm aware there are no reviews currently in progress.
>
> We currently have a backlog of several modules that are ready for comments or review[1]. There seems to be no real schedule for starting reviews other than "when someone pushes for it".
>
> I'm ready to start a discussion on a D lexer module I've written for inclusion in Phobos. There are several modules in line ahead of mine, so I'm willing to hold off on this if the authors of those other modules are ready for review.
>
> [1] http://wiki.dlang.org/Review_Queue

std.decimal.bigfloat is on hold until const is fixed for big
integers. At present  const bigints can't be operands in
arithmetic functions. They can't even be copied to a mutable
bigint. (This used to work.) (In D2.060, I think.)

In the meantime, I'm re-working the code for the fixed size
decimal numbers: decimal32, decimal64 and decimal128.

Paul

On Thursday, 6 June 2013 at 19:50:51 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
> std.uni was recently accepted for inclusion in Phobos, and as far as I'm aware there are no reviews currently in progress.
>
> We currently have a backlog of several modules that are ready for comments or review[1]. There seems to be no real schedule for starting reviews other than "when someone pushes for it".
>
> I'm ready to start a discussion on a D lexer module I've written for inclusion in Phobos. There are several modules in line ahead of mine, so I'm willing to hold off on this if the authors of those other modules are ready for review.
>
> [1] http://wiki.dlang.org/Review_Queue

Looks like there are no objections. I'd say you're up. Just need a Review Manager.

Unless I'm mistaken, all that a Review Manager seems to do is send out the announcements of the (typically 3 week) review and then announce the week long voting period and finally tally and post the results.  I don't see why the person proposing the module can't be the Review Manager too.  I don't really see any sort of conflict of interest when the vote is done publicly and the vote count is usually fewer than a couple dozen.

Anyone disagree?  I think it could really help move the review queue along if people don't have to wrangle up a Review Manager.  Instead they could just post like Brian has done making sure they aren't stepping on anyone's toes.

On Friday, 7 June 2013 at 22:41:56 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 June 2013 at 19:50:51 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
>> std.uni was recently accepted for inclusion in Phobos, and as far as I'm aware there are no reviews currently in progress.
>>
>> We currently have a backlog of several modules that are ready for comments or review[1]. There seems to be no real schedule for starting reviews other than "when someone pushes for it".
>>
>> I'm ready to start a discussion on a D lexer module I've written for inclusion in Phobos. There are several modules in line ahead of mine, so I'm willing to hold off on this if the authors of those other modules are ready for review.
>>
>> [1] http://wiki.dlang.org/Review_Queue
>
> Looks like there are no objections. I'd say you're up. Just need a Review Manager.
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, all that a Review Manager seems to do is send out the announcements of the (typically 3 week) review and then announce the week long voting period and finally tally and post the results.  I don't see why the person proposing the module can't be the Review Manager too.  I don't really see any sort of conflict of interest when the vote is done publicly and the vote count is usually fewer than a couple dozen.
>
> Anyone disagree?  I think it could really help move the review queue along if people don't have to wrangle up a Review Manager.  Instead they could just post like Brian has done making sure they aren't stepping on anyone's toes.

Found the description of the process: http://wiki.dlang.org/Review/Process

It's somewhat vague and could probably use some standard announcement templates people could use.

Looks like it's actually two weeks of review, one week of voting.  I still think the module author should be able to be Review Manager though.

On Thursday, 6 June 2013 at 19:50:51 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
> std.uni was recently accepted for inclusion in Phobos, and as far as I'm aware there are no reviews currently in progress.
>
> We currently have a backlog of several modules that are ready for comments or review[1]. There seems to be no real schedule for starting reviews other than "when someone pushes for it".
>
> I'm ready to start a discussion on a D lexer module I've written for inclusion in Phobos. There are several modules in line ahead of mine, so I'm willing to hold off on this if the authors of those other modules are ready for review.
>
> [1] http://wiki.dlang.org/Review_Queue

I had contacted Jacob (std.serialize), but he said that he wouldn't be available this week so I haven't made an announcement.

As for the process, it is the Boost review with reductions to match our scale. For example I believe Boost specifies a "Review Wizard" whom manages the "Review Managers," but we need the reviewers first, which might be easier to do with someone to do some recruiting.

Brad, As for separations of concern. It probably isn't important with the current quantity and quality of submissions, but there is quite a bit of room for the review manager to work with the submitter to identify and resolve major problems. But yes, it is mostly getting the announcements out and tallying votes.

On Friday, 7 June 2013 at 22:52:47 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
> Found the description of the process: http://wiki.dlang.org/Review/Process
>
> It's somewhat vague and could probably use some standard announcement templates people could use.
>
> Looks like it's actually two weeks of review, one week of voting.
>  I still think the module author should be able to be Review Manager though.

It mentions that after review, it is up to the review manager whether or not to continue with a vote. That seems like a big conflict-of-interest decision.

If I remember correctly, this has even happened before, with std.net.curl.

On Saturday, 8 June 2013 at 07:30:03 UTC, Jakob Ovrum wrote:
> On Friday, 7 June 2013 at 22:52:47 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
>> Found the description of the process: http://wiki.dlang.org/Review/Process
>>
>> It's somewhat vague and could probably use some standard announcement templates people could use.
>>
>> Looks like it's actually two weeks of review, one week of voting.
>> I still think the module author should be able to be Review Manager though.
>
> It mentions that after review, it is up to the review manager whether or not to continue with a vote. That seems like a big conflict-of-interest decision.
>
> If I remember correctly, this has even happened before, with std.net.curl.

I am pretty sure I was not the one deciding to start a vote for std.net.curl back then.

Can't remember who was the review manager though.

On 6/8/13 3:30 AM, Jakob Ovrum wrote:
> On Friday, 7 June 2013 at 22:52:47 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
>> Found the description of the process:
>> http://wiki.dlang.org/Review/Process
>>
>> It's somewhat vague and could probably use some standard announcement
>> templates people could use.
>>
>> Looks like it's actually two weeks of review, one week of voting.
>> I still think the module author should be able to be Review Manager
>> though.
>
> It mentions that after review, it is up to the review manager whether or
> not to continue with a vote. That seems like a big conflict-of-interest
> decision.

Why? The review manager does not have a particular interest in getting the proposal accepted or refused; the role is there just to ensure a fair process.

Andrei

On Saturday, 8 June 2013 at 10:21:58 UTC, Jonas Drewsen wrote:
> I am pretty sure I was not the one deciding to start a vote for std.net.curl back then.
>
> Can't remember who was the review manager though.

That would have been me for the first time round, and then the other David (i.e. Simcha) for the second iteration after you incorporated the review comments.

David

On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 09:26:09AM -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 6/8/13 3:30 AM, Jakob Ovrum wrote:
> >On Friday, 7 June 2013 at 22:52:47 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
> >>Found the description of the process: http://wiki.dlang.org/Review/Process
> >>
> >>It's somewhat vague and could probably use some standard announcement templates people could use.
> >>
> >>Looks like it's actually two weeks of review, one week of voting. I still think the module author should be able to be Review Manager though.
> >
> >It mentions that after review, it is up to the review manager whether or not to continue with a vote. That seems like a big conflict-of-interest decision.
> 
> Why? The review manager does not have a particular interest in getting the proposal accepted or refused; the role is there just to ensure a fair process.
[...]

If the review manager is also the author, wouldn't he have particular interest in getting the proposal accepted?


T

-- 
There are four kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.