David Abrahams wrote:
IMO, aside from not having enough volunteers at the moment, a condition I believe we can fix in any number of ways, the review manager role, and reviews in general, are a part of the Boost process that I think really works and doesn't need fixing.
Absolutely. My proposed alternative cannot be claimed to be better than the current scheme if experienced and knowledgeable volunteers are available to serve as review managers. It has been conceived with the initial assumption that they aren't. Not having enough RM volunteers has been a persistent problem for years now.
FWIW, I have to admit that, although I think it's good to re-examine everything we do from time to time, I am a bit uncomfortable with re-examining everything we do from the ground up all at once, which seems to be the direction in which we're now headed.
Coincidence. In addition, re-examination does not imply change. It only implies impartial reflection and critical thinking. It's OK to shoot down in flames a proposed change and reaffirm that the current process should stay.