And for my thoughts on reviewing the logging libraries, in general: - I didn't follow the other combined review closely - the plural of anecdote is not data (ie one case might not be enough to generalize from) - if we do separate the reviews this means: Review Lib A reject/approve/ask for changes/etc Review Lib B reject/approve/ask for changes/etc But since we, in this case, do know that somewhat similar (if at least by general topic of 'logging') libs are being proposed, then why not: Review Lib A comment/ask for changes/ etc Review Lib B comment/ask for changes/etc reject/approve A, B ie don't reject/approve A before reviewing B. Otherwise B seems to be at an unfair advantage. ie if B is significantly different (in scope, trade-offs, etc), then we can accept both. If there is significant overlap, then the feeling is "well B is fine, but we already have A..." ie separate reviews, single approval? Tony