John Phillips wrote:
Peter Dimov wrote:
I agree that it could be incredibly hard for a submitter to prepare an impartial summary of the opinions of the reviewers and that not everyone will want to do so.
That said, if a submitter is willing and able to go through this experience, we might consider granting him/her the opportunity if a review manager hasn't turned up for, say, three months.
This strikes me as one of those jobs where the people who would want it might include some of the people you would least want to give it to.
The general high level of the conversations and professional responsibility on the boost developer list is a credit to the group. However, even here there have been cases of someone claiming to be reasonable and objective while actually being neither.
The potential for abuse is not lost on me. However, the fact that the system can be abused does not necessarily mean that it will be abused in practice. If this happens, we can just go back to the traditional approach and we'll be no worse off, or we can try a hybrid approach allowing more people to qualify for the RM role. It would be nice if we could devise a system that does not suffer from the "silent rejection" problem: you input a review request (or a RM application) into it and receive no output back for months (or at all).