Andrey Semashev wrote:
On 18 Apr 2025 01:01, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 4:05 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org <mailto:boost@lists.boost.org>> wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 20:40, Matt Borland via Boost wrote: > > I would like to ask what are the showstoppers that keep you from wanting to be a review manager? Time, Training, Recognition, none of the above?
I think the requirement to be an expert or at least very knowledgeable in the problem domain is a big part of why. Personally, I do not see myself qualified to judge on the qualities of the recently proposed libraries.
I agree, and.. I've wondered about that requirement. Is it really needed? If an established Boost developer has a good amount of professional experience they are likely to be able to tackle most programming domains at the level needed for managing a review. Should we reconsider that requirement? For example I would consider myself to know enough to manage the Bloom review. But...
Given that the review manager is the one solely responsible for deciding whether a library deserves acceptance, it would be strange not to require a certain, fairly high level of expertise.
The domain-specific expertise should come from the reviewers; the review manager should (minimally) just be qualified enough to evaluate the reviews. General C++ expertise is more important for the review manager because he is supposed to help the submitter prepare the library so that it's suitable for Boost.