Re: async-mqtt5 is CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTED

From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-11-05 10:14:52

On Tuesday, November 5, 2024, Vinnie Falco  wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 10:11 AM Peter Dimov via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> > I agree with Andrey. Design discussions about a library currently under
> > review are supposed to take place on the mailing list. This serves two
> > purposes, it helps reviewers who for any reason are struggling to reach
> > a final accept/reject verdict, and it can encourage people to review the
> > library by piquing their interest.
> >
>
> In hindsight I wish the discussions had taken place on the mailing list.
> Yet there was far less friction on Slack and ultimately I chose the path of
> least resistance, as the immediacy of replies in the moment led to a more
> engaging conversation.
>

I'm not sure I understand. Is what happened here that the review result was
driven (even if in part) by information provided to the review manager
_outside_ of the mailing list, and this information was _not_ shared by the
review manager with the mailing list?

If so, I would be  surprised if more people aren't upset with the review.

Glen