On Sat, Sep 5, 2026 at 11:24 AM Peter Dimov via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
...he said "I'm working on it."
There are essentially three options: 1. Waiting longer. This has the highest variance. If the review is delivered, then closure. If not, the withdrawal will be silent (like the bdt2 withdrawal which was followed by 10 years of mailing list silence). 2. A replacement review manager to assess existing reviews. This preserves Jeff's investment in the review process and also gives us an institutional outcome. 3. A brand new review (Glen's option). This is the worst possible choice. The review manager's work to date is implicitly voided. The appetite to review the same libraries twice would likely be less than before. If a review outcome is to materialize it would have to happen in the next 6 days because CppCon is unlikely to yield reviews, and the wg21 workload post-conference is high (there's a mailing plus telecons). A sensible path would be to start soliciting a new review manager now, since the earliest we could get a new review going would probably be early October if that.