Eric Niebler wrote:
Peter Dimov wrote:
Eric Niebler wrote:
Peter Dimov wrote:
Why do we need a review manager at all?
Primarily to avoid any questions or doubts about whether a library should be accepted or not. The review manager supposedly takes everybody's feedback into account, but makes the ultimate yes/no decision, and is even free to buck popular opinion.
Do so many of our reviews end in such a non-conclusive manner as to require a decision from a review manager?
It's irrelevant that it doesn't happen often. If it happens EVER and we don't have one person designated to break the tie, there's the potential for a nasty situation. And that one person has to be qualified for his/her opinion to carry weight.
It is not irrelevant at all. If disputes only occur one time in a hundred, there is no need to recruit 100 volunteer review managers just because one of them might need to break a tie. We can just say "Eric Niebler breaks ties if they occur" and carry on.