Re: async-mqtt5 is CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTED

From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-11-05 10:31:26

On 11/5/24 13:14, Glen Fernandes via Boost wrote:
> 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.

Klemens already stated that he didn't take the discussion on Slack into
account in the review conclusion.

However, as I've already said, I do think that the discussion should
have happened on the ML.