Re: async-mqtt5 is CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTED

From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-11-05 10:26:30

On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 at 11:14, Glen Fernandes via boost_at_[hidden] wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 5, 2024, Vinnie Falco  wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 10:11 AM Peter Dimov via 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?

My understanding is this:
- review concluded based on what was posted to the mailing list
- extensive discussions happened on the Slack, but without any trace in
public domain
- discussion on the Slack seem to be formally ignored what makes some
people surprised

However, now, I'm confused myself too.

Best regards,
-- 
Mateusz Loskot
on behalf of the Review Wizards