On 11/5/24 09:59, Klemens Morgenstern via Boost wrote:
Here's what I would make policy, if the author wants to be active on slack:
1. A review announcement includes a slack channel designated for discussion related to the review 2. Require reviews to be on the mailing list (or by mail to the RM). 3. At the closing of the review period the RM sends the transcript to the ML. 4. The RM is allowed to post parts of the transcript earlier (e.g. a daily update) depending on the activity on slack. By closing the whole discussion must be on the ML.
This would make Slack an option but keep a complete & public record on the ML.
Maybe the new website has a way to make this a bit easier than copy-pasting from slack.
The problem with reproducing the Slack discussion on the ML is that it doesn't allow further discussion between residents of ML and Slack. It is better than nothing, of course, but I don't see it as something that we want to encourage. I think, a better policy would be for the review manager to state clearly before the review that the review discussion happens on the ML *only*, and any discussions on other platforms, including Slack, will not be taken into account. The review manager is allowed to post comments from other platforms on the ML if he is willing to make the audience aware of the points made there, and possibly receive feedback on those points from the library author and community. This would be the means for the review manager to gather additional input to make up his decision. This would *not* be the means to participate in the review outside the ML, though. There was a precedent to this during the review of Boost.Scope. Dmitry has posted comments gathered from Reddit, which I answered, and some of which eventually took to improve the library. I'm not sure if it helped Dmitry to manage the review, but I would hope it provided some answers and benefited the library.