Re: [boost] async-mqtt5 is CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTED

On 10/30/24 18:00, Arnaud Becheler wrote:

On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 3:32 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost mailto:boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

On 10/30/24 17:14, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 7:01 AM Christian Mazakas via Boost < > boost@lists.boost.org mailto:boost@lists.boost.org> wrote: > >> The author of the proposed library avoided all discussions about the design > > There was quite a lot of discussion regarding the design, and it took place > on Slack rather than the mailing list.

I think, the formal media for the review discussion is the mailing list. Yes, reviews may be collected through other channels, but the discussion needs to be held in one place that is easily referenceable, and this is currently the ML.

I'm not invalidating any points that may have been made on Slack or elsewhere, but I'm saying that the fact that the discussion was held outside the ML is an organizational issue that should probably have been prevented by the review manager.

I'm not subscribed to Slack and I imagine, there are other users who also aren't subscribed. AFAIK, Slack spaces are not viewable by non-subscribers, which make it unsuitable for referenceable discussions such as Boost reviews.

I don’t have strong opinions on the review process. Most of the feedback seems to center around communication styles and individual preferences. I don't agree with the suggestion of replacing the review manager; that would overlook the significant work done by the authors, reviewers, and manager. If the process wasn’t perfect, perhaps it just needs clearer formalization and communication.

For the record, I did not suggest to replace the review manager or disregard the review conclusion. My comment was entirely about communication channels used during the review and nothing else. It may be that this communication issue could be mitigated if the review manager posts the discussion records on the ML, at least those he considers important for the purpose of the review. But of course it's up to the review manager whether he thinks that is something worth doing.

To my knowledge, there isn't a step-by-step document outlining the specific responsibilities and tasks for a Boost review manager.

https://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html See the "Notes for Review Managers" section in that document.

I’m also unaware of any guideline stating that all communications related to a library under review should only occur on the mailing list.

From the page linked above:

<quote> Boost mailing list members are encouraged to submit Formal Review comments: * Publicly on the mailing list. * Privately to the Review Manager. Private comments to a library submitter may be helpful to her or him, but won't help the Review Manager reach a decision, so the other forms are preferred. </quote>

I don't think such a rule would even be practical. The mailing list and Slack serve different purposes for communication. Personally, I would consider unsubscribing from the mailing list if Slack-style synchronous messages started spamming my inbox.

Mailing lists are not chats, so chat-style communication would not be suitable for an ML. I think, everyone here understand this. And I consider that a plus point for keeping the review discussions on the ML as this favors more thought out and in-depth discussions.

Each communication channel serves a unique purpose, and it’s up to community members to subscribe to those that best suit their needs. If someone chooses to intentionally avoid a particular channel, that's their choice, but it’s unfair to fault others for using it.

One important correction: given that Slack blocks access based on user's location, not being subscribed might not be the user's choice. And again, being able to reference individual reviews and discussion points is an important part of a review. Slack doesn't allow this, which means it should not be used for conducting review discussions. PS: Please, don't top-post.