On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:
This is all about saving everybody time, hassle and confusion. Not about prespecifying how reviews are written, understood, or interpreted.
I think you're blowing this incident a little out of proportion. Just a difference of expectations on both the author and a reviewer (or two) is not so catastrophic that it requires an overhaul of the review process involving paid investment in some automated submission system. If anything is essential for reviewers to expect, for library authors to do, it can be clarified on the formal review process website. Rather, I hope that nobody needs to be funded to add more helpful detail for reviewers, library authors, review managers at http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html Glen