std.benchmark ready for review. Manager sought after

[Dmitry Olshansky]

On 17.04.2012 1:00, Jens Mueller wrote:
> Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
>> On Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 16:23:32 UTC, Jens Mueller wrote:
>>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> There have been quite a few good comments, but no review manager
>>>> offer. Could someone please take this role?
>>>
>>> I will do this.
>>> But I will need to get more familiar with the process. And add it
>>> to
>>> http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?ReviewQueue for future review
>>> managers.
>>
>>
>> The review process is based on Boost's:
>>
>> http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html#Review_Manager
>
> The page is shorter than expected. Last time I checked I found something
> way longer. Since the Phobos' review process is based on Boost's where
> does deviate?
>

It's peer review followed by voting and that's all about it.
I don't think you should seek any formal standards, documents, 
guidelines, etc.

The manager role is rather simple:

1. Manger picks module from review queue and posts an announcement that 
formal review of it starts today. Post should contain relevant 
information about module and links to source/documentation. Also 
importantly it sets the exact time the review ends and the exact time 
voting ends. (usually 2 weeks review, 1 week for voting)

2. When review ends Manager ether opens a vote thread.
If it's obvious that module needs futher work (on explicit request from 
author) Manager may choose to prolong or postpone review thus putting it 
back into queue.

3. When vote period ends count up the votes and declare the result.

And that's it.
There are no hard rule on which module has the priority in queue.
It is loosely calculated on basis of how long it was ready for review 
and how important the functionality is.

P.S. If you are not sure are up to it just say the word and I'll 
volunteer instead. We need to push this forward as the review queue is 
going to overflow real soon ;)

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky