Thanks John for starting this thread. Our preference has always been to assign the "Review Manager" role to those that have already submitted a library, or at-least an active contributer to boost in some capacity. If no one with this background volunteers, and the proposed library has had sufficient time on the list, we would make the "Review Manager" role available to others. Typically, we would do a search on the mailing list to get a feel for how actively the volunteer has participated in some previous discussions. Often, we will read their comments and make an assessment if they would be a good match for a given library. We have tried to set the "bar" pretty high. It should also be stated that the library author has the responsibility to generate interest in his library. Just having the library added to the "Review Queue" is not enough. He must regularly post comments to this list about issues that are relevant to his library and of interest to boost developers. He should attempt to create a small community of people that have an interest in having the library added. He must be an advocate for his library and tell "us" why it would be a good addition. Successfully submitting a library to boost can be a career changing accomplishment for some. If a library has been on the queue for over six months, and no one has steped up to volunteer to be the "review-manager", there could be a problem with the library and it may not ready for review. Every situation is different. We have no difficulty finding "qualified" review managers for the larger high-profile libraries. However, its the smaller, obscure libraries, that dont have an obvious use-case that have troubles. A little bit of "salesmanship" by the authors of the smaller libraries is often all that is needed to get other developers to take a look at it. Also, many of us like to read discussion threads about the proposed libraries well in advance of the actual review. As far as I can tell, very little of this has been done for the libraries that are currently languashing in the "review queue". In the case of John Phillips, even though he hasn't sumbitted a library; (if I recall correctly), he is a Professor of Mathmatics and has contributed regularly to many discussion on various topics on the boost mailing list. His reviews have always been among the most thoughtful and relevant. We could only hope that all "reviews" are handeled as well his. We are fortunate that he has also voluntered to be the "Review Manager" for the upcoming "review" of Eric Neibler's "Time-series" library. We have had many discussions behind the scenes about how to improve the review process. Hopefully, this thread will start another such discussion.