On Fri, Sep 4, 2026 at 8:17 AM Glen Fernandes <glen.fernandes@gmail.com> wrote:
A brand new formal review is always an option.
I am concerned about review volume. The average number of reviews per library has been on a yearly decline. And I would imagine there would be less enthusiasm for a re-review of the same library set. We have invested significant resources in promoting Capy and Corosio at CppCon, and I was expecting a review verdict (either acceptance, with conditions, or rejection) ahead of the conference. My original thinking for asking Jeff Garland was that 1. It would a fitting reprisal of his role acting as review manager for Boost.Asio 2. Jeff's deep institutional connections in WG21 and Beman project would bring in more new reviewers Unfortunately, my decision backfired spectacularly. I am not aware of any reviewers that were brought in specifically by the review manager. I asked Dietmar Kuhl on the LEWG reflector if he would participate, since he has taken ownership of standardizing networking on std::execution. He declined. This speaks to the larger, ongoing problem of declining Boost participation. The Boost Formal Review process is one of the two valuable social technologies that Boost delivers to the C++ ecosystem, and this technology depends on reviewers and review managers. If the formal review process becomes increasingly viewed as a process that does not deliver its verdict reliably, I fear this will cause permanent damage to the Boost Libraries. Thanks