Hi everyone, Thank you to the community, reviewers, and the review manager for all the hard work and dedication. I apologize for not being available to review the library myself, as I would have liked to contribute. I don’t have strong opinions on the review process. Most of the feedback seems to center around communication styles and individual preferences. I don't agree with the suggestion of replacing the review manager; that would overlook the significant work done by the authors, reviewers, and manager. If the process wasn’t perfect, perhaps it just needs clearer formalization and communication. To my knowledge, there isn't a step-by-step document outlining the specific responsibilities and tasks for a Boost review manager. If such "Boost Review Manager Guidelines" don’t exist or is not clearly formalized, I find it unfair to critique the contributions of those who have dedicated their time. Is there an existing document that clearly articulates and communicates these responsibilities to the review manager as checkboxes for example? I’m also unaware of any guideline stating that all communications related to a library under review should only occur on the mailing list. I don't think such a rule would even be practical. The mailing list and Slack serve different purposes for communication. Personally, I would consider unsubscribing from the mailing list if Slack-style synchronous messages started spamming my inbox. Each communication channel serves a unique purpose, and it’s up to community members to subscribe to those that best suit their needs. If someone chooses to intentionally avoid a particular channel, that's their choice, but it’s unfair to fault others for using it. While I agree that the review manager could have included more details about Slack discussions in their report, this again raises the question: Are these guidelines relevant, clearly defined, and communicated? Best regards, and rainbow kitties Arno On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 3:32 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 7:01 AM Christian Mazakas via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
The author of the proposed library avoided all discussions about the design
There was quite a lot of discussion regarding the design, and it took
On 10/30/24 17:14, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote: place
on Slack rather than the mailing list.
I think, the formal media for the review discussion is the mailing list. Yes, reviews may be collected through other channels, but the discussion needs to be held in one place that is easily referenceable, and this is currently the ML.
I'm not invalidating any points that may have been made on Slack or elsewhere, but I'm saying that the fact that the discussion was held outside the ML is an organizational issue that should probably have been prevented by the review manager.
I'm not subscribed to Slack and I imagine, there are other users who also aren't subscribed. AFAIK, Slack spaces are not viewable by non-subscribers, which make it unsuitable for referenceable discussions such as Boost reviews.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost