On 4/19/22 01:26, Marcelo Zimbres Silva via Boost wrote: <snip>
Hi,
I think there still some points worth being discussed in this thread
<snip>
2. Make the review more transparent. If I understand correctly, almost anyone can be a review manager (criteria unclear) and that the acceptance is not decided counting yes and no votes. What happens however when the Review manager is not knowledgeable about the subject? How should he decide whether to accept or not? Authors want a fair treatment of their review.
<snip>
Marcelo
Boost Review Managers are vetted by the Review Wizards https://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html#Wizard. Part of the criteria is summed up as: "Approve the review manager based on initial acceptance by the library submitter, their participation in the Boost community, including the mailing list, previous reviews, and other forums." The goal is that the Review Manager is knowledgeable in the subject. There have been a few exceptions to that. If appropriate community participation occurs with experts, the process can still work fine. The Review Manager's duties are described here: https://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html#Review_Manager. The job of the Review Manager is explicitly not to tally up votes. They are to weigh the input from reviews and make an informed choice about the readiness of a library to enter Boost. Not all reviews are equal. Some reviews are very detailed and provide a great deal of background and reasoning. Other reviews are brief and look only at documentation or perhaps attempt to compile and run examples. All reviews provide important feedback but the feedback is used appropriately by the Review Manager. Boost reviews are somewhat grueling because of the intensity and level of expectation. Very often the Review Manager and Author will come to agreement for a negative outcome. The job of Review Manager is tough and requires some amount of finesse. Are you aware of a review in which author was unfairly treated? michael -- Michael Caisse