On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 7:46 AM Christian Mazakas via Boost
On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 3:11 PM Klemens Morgenstern via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
How would you evaluate the technical merits of such a review?
This was a bad Boost review because the author of the proposed library chose to ignore interacting with any and all "negative" discussion and the review manager did the exact same.
IMO, a review manager is not supposed to participate in the discussion, except to ask for clarifications on issues that might be relevant to the review. In this case, this wasn't necessary as other participants did so. The author not being responsive enough should be brought up during the review period and not afterwards.
But what I think as an individual doesn't really matter. The point of Boost and review is to foster discussion and toss ideas around about how feasible it is to implement things.
I don't think this is correct. The point of the review is to evaluate the library under review. The discussion should happen before that, which is why the review gets announced. In this case, the intent to review was announced in May (or June). Discussion around this library also took place since then on Slack. The idea that the review period is meant to toss ideas around seems misguided to me. We should do a better job having these kinds of discussions before the review, rather than having these fruitless ones after.