I am willing to be a review manager to help expedite the review of libraries in the review schedule which do not have a review manager assigned to it. Looking at the review process web page it says that the review wizards, whom the page says are currently John Phillips and Ronald Garcia, maintain a list of review manager volunteers. I do not know if that means I should be e-mailing directly the review wizards, so I decided to post this here first instead. I have been a programmer for 33 years, am very good with C++, and have a pretty good understanding of the basic Boost libraries ( MPL, Type Traits, PP, Function Types etc. ) with which other programmers may be working in order to produce a library for Boost. I have also put two libraries in the sandbox and am working on a third which I will eventually upload, so I have gained some experience in producing a potential library for Boost. Whether that qualifies me for being a review manager others can decide. My heart will not be broken if it does not, but if I am accepted as a potential review manager I know I can do a good job. Looking at the documentation of the libraries currently in the queue which do not have a review manager as yet, I believe I am familiar enough with the ideas of some of the libraries to be a review manager for any of these: bitfield conversion join endian string_convert pimpl My own point of view, unlike what others have generally expressed, is that the review wizards should assign reviews to potential review managers, after e-mailing them to see if they would be available for a particular library, rather than the library implementer directly asking someone to review their library. I feel that way because I think there may be too much influence on the review manager to accept a reviewed library when the library implementer and the review manager are joined by the direct asking process. But perhaps I am wrong, especially as many libraries have no review manager and the review wizards do not seem to be assigning review managers to those libraries from some volunteer list which they have. I believe it is important to break the logjam which is the current review schedule without keeping library implementers waiting for a longer and longer period of time to get their libraries reviewed, much less added to a Boost distribution in the future if it is accepted. The lack of review managers seems to be one of the major reason for this jamup and I would like to alleviate it in my own way, especially as I would like to eventually get my own libraries reviewed in the near future when I request it.