Re: async-mqtt5 is CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTED

From: Arnaud Becheler (arnaud.becheler_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-11-09 22:23:30

>
> I understand what you are trying to do and there is a better way to do it.
> Anyone can participate in the reviews, and even individuals who are
> conflicted should still participate. In most cases they have considerable
> understanding of the domain and the library in particular, we want to hear
> what they have to say. However, the review manager should consider all of
> the above (1, 2, and 3) when evaluating the extent to which a particular
> reviewer should influence the outcome. For this, conspicuous disclosures
> are needed (see previous)
>

I think we both agree, my final proposal was not the points you mentioned
(that are too stringent for boost context), but the sketch of the
guidelines at the end that accounted for what you just said :

*Clause for Reviewer:* *A Reviewer must not participate in reviewing
> submissions in which (i) **They have contributed as an author or
> co-author, (ii) **They have a direct financial interest or contractual
> obligation tied to the submission. **Reviewers affiliated with the same
> organization as the author may participate, provided they disclose this
> relationship and their input is balanced by independent reviewers and
> reported at the discretion of the Review Manager.*

Ultimately I believe we just want *at least* to visualize if there is a
meaningful correlation between two categorical variables: affiliations and
acceptance.

If the Reviewers gave their disclosure (that should be automatically
required in the future, e.g., with an online Form), it should not be too
complicated for the Review Manager to generate an automated report
utilizing the Reviewers data table affiliation/acceptance.
The report could compute the contingency table and draw a stacked bar chart
or a mosaic plot or whatever, and the results be presented during the
Review Manager report. Maybe transparency alone could reassure participants
that the process is fair.

If nonetheless a complaint was made during the Retrospective phase that
Conflicts of Interest affected the neutrality of the review, the Review
Wizards Council could i) acknowledge the complaint ii) investigate the
conflict of interest iii) conduct an independent review iv) communicate
findings and assign a new Review Manager.

Best wishes,