Gordon Woodhull wrote:
I think any author who really wants their library to be in Boost should be willing to submit it for a second review. And I think reviewers should tend toward conditions on acceptance rather than no votes. My two cents.
I think the least important element of any of my reviews has been the headline yes/no "vote", since most proposals have had good and bad aspects, so I have been worried that the last couple of review results have actually called these "votes" and counted them. My recollection (which may be flawed) is that in the past we avoided ever calling reviews "votes". Regarding second reviews, the counter-argument is that we have limited reviewing resources and so authors should present their proposals in what they believe is the final state. If an additional round is needed, I would prefer that to be in the form of more "previews". Regards, Phil.