Re: Stewardship Review Request

From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-08-21 15:04:47

On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 4:32 AM John Maddock via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> We need to move along with the this.
>

I get the sense that they are at least pointed in the right direction,
which is a good thing. And there is a mismatch in cadence, which is
challenging for me as I like to move fast. The counterclaim is that this is
volunteer work, which is also true. There could be value in thinking about
which aspects of the project have activity levels as a bottleneck.

For example, there are two separate MQTT libraries currently proposed. The
community determined that a single review to evaluate two proposals
together was not appropriate, yet no decision has been made as to an
alternative method for review. A potentially useful library is now
sidelined, with its author in limbo. This harms the reputation of the
project, and there should be a discussion on how our process might be
updated to better serve the reviews.

 Thanks