Boost logo

Boost :

From: Arnaud Becheler (arnaud.becheler_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-10-30 15:00:49


Hi everyone,

Thank you to the community, reviewers, and the review manager for all the
hard work and dedication. I apologize for not being available to review the
library myself, as I would have liked to contribute.

I don’t have strong opinions on the review process. Most of the feedback
seems to center around communication styles and individual preferences. I
don't agree with the suggestion of replacing the review manager; that would
overlook the significant work done by the authors, reviewers, and manager.
If the process wasn’t perfect, perhaps it just needs clearer formalization
and communication.

To my knowledge, there isn't a step-by-step document outlining the specific
responsibilities and tasks for a Boost review manager. If such "Boost
Review Manager Guidelines" don’t exist or is not clearly formalized, I find
it unfair to critique the contributions of those who have dedicated their
time. Is there an existing document that clearly articulates and
communicates these responsibilities to the review manager as checkboxes for
example?

I’m also unaware of any guideline stating that all communications related
to a library under review should only occur on the mailing list. I don't
think such a rule would even be practical. The mailing list and Slack serve
different purposes for communication. Personally, I would consider
unsubscribing from the mailing list if Slack-style synchronous messages
started spamming my inbox. Each communication channel serves a unique
purpose, and it’s up to community members to subscribe to those that best
suit their needs. If someone chooses to intentionally avoid a particular
channel, that's their choice, but it’s unfair to fault others for using it.
While I agree that the review manager could have included more details
about Slack discussions in their report, this again raises the question:
Are these guidelines relevant, clearly defined, and communicated?

Best regards, and rainbow kitties
Arno

On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 3:32 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 10/30/24 17:14, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 7:01 AM Christian Mazakas via Boost <
> > boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> >> The author of the proposed library avoided all discussions about the
> design
> >
> > There was quite a lot of discussion regarding the design, and it took
> place
> > on Slack rather than the mailing list.
>
> I think, the formal media for the review discussion is the mailing list.
> Yes, reviews may be collected through other channels, but the discussion
> needs to be held in one place that is easily referenceable, and this is
> currently the ML.
>
> I'm not invalidating any points that may have been made on Slack or
> elsewhere, but I'm saying that the fact that the discussion was held
> outside the ML is an organizational issue that should probably have been
> prevented by the review manager.
>
> I'm not subscribed to Slack and I imagine, there are other users who
> also aren't subscribed. AFAIK, Slack spaces are not viewable by
> non-subscribers, which make it unsuitable for referenceable discussions
> such as Boost reviews.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk