On Thursday, 10 October 2013 at 03:14:30 UTC, Jesse Phillips
wrote:
There is little documentation on how to handle the situation
the Review Manager is currently facing. I would like to open
this discussion to point out why, and to poll for if we should
have any.
The reason is that our process comes from the the Boost review,
and there is no such definition[1].
The way we have it makes it appear that the module is accepted
as a majority vote. However that isn't the intention of the
Boost process. The Review Manager wields a lot of power during
the vote tally. The key line in our documentation:
"Tallies votes and decides if there is consensus to accept the
library and under what conditions."
The Review Manager is trying to judge based on the input how
well this library fits with the goals of Phobos and the D
community. That doesn't mean a landslide victory is needed.
So with that I, and probably Dicebot, would like to hear
feedback.
Dicebot, consider what information may help make your decision.
Would yes votes including positive feedback help (it is easier
to side with those providing an argument)?
1. http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html#Introduction
"The final "accept" or "reject" decision is made by the Review
Manager, based on the review comments received from boost
mailing list members."
Boost doesn't do a review then vote separation.
I think that we should use consensus model, not a majority vote.
It's useful for small groups. For example, Wikipedia use it:
This page in a nutshell: Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental
model for editorial decision-making.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus
