On 1/25/23 1:21 PM, Mateusz Loskot via Boost wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 at 22:05, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:

...

In hindsight, I feel like perhaps we collectively failed the review process. I think that Boost.Aedis was in fact not ready for a review and it did a disservice both to the library and the author that we rushed to review it. [...]

There review submission is not an one chance in lifetime attempt. If it is necessary and desired by reviewers, prospect users and author, and author is interested and willing to improve library, then nothing wrong with having re-review, and re-re-review...

So, I wouldn't use words like disservice and failure as every cloud has a silver lining.

Best regards,

FWIW - The serialization library, after much feedback and consideration was initially rejected by Boost. This was the correct decision as it wasn't really ready by a long shot. Me being me, this was not a cause for dispare, but rather inspiration to re-double my efforts. The result is the serialization library you today. This occurred around 2003. I hope you find this bit of history helpful. Robert Ramey

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, 9:59 am Vinnie Falco via Boost, wrote:

On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 1:21 PM Mateusz Loskot via Boost wrote:

...

There review submission is not an one chance in lifetime attempt. ... So, I wouldn't use words like disservice and failure ... Some reviewers will not bother with a second review (this happens every time, re-reviews get less engagement).

"You never get a second chance to make a first impression." ... We set prospective libraries up for success when we take time ahead of the review for subject matter experts, stakeholders, and volunteers who are interested in improving Boost, to "pre-review" the library and help the author address any likely hiccups before the formal review. To "incubate"...

Thanks Mateusz, Vinnie, Marcelo and all the reviewers. I'm just a voice of appreciation from the sidelines (of this round) for both the aedis library and re Boost "health" in general. Pre or not the review / reviewer effort has, I hope, helped the author/progressed the library. Is there not potential to make the review result a platform for gaining a "community" round the library, and when it is ready, to submit again? Surely any such community would include many (new) potential reviewers as well as mentors, and so provide "incubation"? I think this review can be a success. It is not match over. All the best Darryl.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 at 00:59, Vinnie Falco wrote:

On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 1:21 PM Mateusz Loskot via Boost wrote:

...

There review submission is not an one chance in lifetime attempt. ... So, I wouldn't use words like disservice and failure

I disagree. Writing a review is a significant investment of effort and we need all the reviews we can get. It wastes reviewers' time when they have to review the same library twice. I think everyone would agree that when someone re-reviews a library it will not quite live up to the same level of energy and thoughtfulness as the original review. Some reviewers will not bother with a second review (this happens every time, re-reviews get less engagement).

My view is that most of reviewers are (assumed to be) also prospect users (with knowledge of technology or domain a library is about) who are also keenly interested in using the library under review. Hence, they are also keenly interested to review the improved library again as they take it as an opportunity to shape the library they are going to use. It could be that my view is based on incorrect observations and wrong assumptions. Then, well, it's only cows who never change their opinion. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net