From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2025-04-18 01:51:10
Andrey Semashev wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2025 01:01, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 4:05 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost
> > <boost_at_[hidden] <mailto:boost_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
> >
> > On 17 Apr 2025 20:40, Matt Borland via Boost wrote:
> > >
> > > I would like to ask what are the showstoppers that keep you from
> > wanting to be a review manager? Time, Training, Recognition, none of
> > the above?
> >
> > I think the requirement to be an expert or at least very knowledgeable
> > in the problem domain is a big part of why. Personally, I do not see
> > myself qualified to judge on the qualities of the recently proposed
> > libraries.
> >
> >
> > I agree, and.. I've wondered about that requirement. Is it really
> > needed? If an established Boost developer has a good amount of
> > professional experience they are likely to be able to tackle most
> > programming domains at the level needed for managing a review. Should
> > we reconsider that requirement? For example I would consider myself to
> > know enough to manage the Bloom review. But...
>
> Given that the review manager is the one solely responsible for deciding
> whether a library deserves acceptance, it would be strange not to require a
> certain, fairly high level of expertise.
The domain-specific expertise should come from the reviewers; the review
manager should (minimally) just be qualified enough to evaluate the reviews.
General C++ expertise is more important for the review manager because
he is supposed to help the submitter prepare the library so that it's
suitable for Boost.