Recently, there were various comments about current review process, and its possible improvements. However, I wanted to start with a small point. Looking at: http://www.boost.org/community/review_schedule.html it seems that a few libraries have a review manager assigned, but there's no date. This means that: - It looks like our review schedule is full, because the item is there, and - It prevents anybody to volunteer as review manager for such library. I think there might be several reasons why a library does not have a review date: - The library is not actually ready. In that case, it should not be in that table at all. - The library author does not have the time for review. In that case, the library should also be removed from the list, because Boost is not responsible if the author is busy. - The review manager does not have the time for review. In that case, he should not be listed as assigned, and should not block others. Can we set a policy that: - A library can only be added in the review schedule if the author has time in near future to have a review, where near future is, say, 3 months. - A review manager is only assigned if a review date is set at the same time, where the date should be in near future -- say, 3 months again. I think such a policy might not improve our overall review speed too much, but surely will make the situation a bit clear, and allow to understand the real problems with the review system. Thanks, -- Vladimir Prus http://vladimir_prus.blogspot.com Boost.Build: http://boost.org/boost-build2