formal reviews text updates (#365)

formal-reviews/modules/ROOT/pages/managing-reviews.adoc

@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ Reality Check:: The review manager is _not_ supposed to impartially reflect the
 +
 A review manager _can_ write a review themselves, though this process is independent of their role of review manager. 
 +
-The review process is more like a court - with the judge (the review manager) asking _"Does the library meet the required standards for acceptance as a Boost library?"_.  This question is resolved by various advocates presenting their cases, criticizing other advocates cases, presenting facts, logical arguments, their own experiences, and so on.  The judge's job is to weigh all this and reach a decision. And they may add conditions on acceptance, or not. If concensus between judge and authors cannot be reached on meeting any conditions - the process ends without a resolution (the mistrial). 
+The review process is more like a court - with the judge (the review manager) asking _"Does the library meet the required standards for acceptance as a Boost library?"_.  This question is resolved by various advocates presenting their cases, criticizing other advocates cases, presenting facts, logical arguments, their own experiences, and so on.  The judge's job is to weigh all this and reach a decision. And they may add conditions on acceptance, or not. If consensus between judge and authors cannot be reached on meeting any conditions - the process ends without a resolution (the mistrial). 
 +
 The review manager is - for better or worse - personally responsible for making the decision, defending the results, and dealing with future criticism.  Their name will be public.  This is not a job for everyone.
 +
@@ -56,6 +56,27 @@ If, years from now, someone would like to know why a library was accepted or rej
 +
 Ideally, the review summary should contain all the information the manager has taken into account when coming to a decision. If there were discussions out of band, they need to be summarized. If there were discussions _on the list_ that haven't made their way into the formal reviews, they should be summarized too. Refer to the xref:writing-reviews.adoc#bestpractices[Best Practices] section on Writing Reviews for some issues to look out for. 
 
+=== Rejecting a Library
+
+One of the challenging tasks a review manager might have to take on is to write rejection rationale for a submitted library. For reference, here are links to the rationale of several libraries that were rejected in recent years.
+
+[cols="1,2,2",stripes=even,options="header",frame=none]
+|===
+| *Submission* | *Review Dates* | *Result Rationale*
+| Mustache | February 5, 2023 - February 14, 2023 | https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2023/02/254188.php[Rejected]
+
+| Text | June 11, 2020 - June 20, 2020 | https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2020/06/249242.php[Rejected]
+
+| out_ptr| June 16, 2019 - July 10, 2019 | https://lists.boost.org/boost-announce/2019/07/0558.php[Rejected]
+
+| Timsort| June 3, 2017 - June 12, 2017 | https://lists.boost.org/boost-announce/2017/06/0513.php[Rejected]
+
+| Synapse|  December 2, 2016 - December 11, 2016 | https://lists.boost.org/boost-announce/2016/12/0484.php[Rejected]
+
+|===
+
+For links to all available acceptance and rejection rationales, refer to xref:review-results.adoc#pastreviewresults[Past Review Results and Milestones].
+
 == Becoming a Review Manager
 
 To manage a review, you should have experience with the review process and ideally expert knowledge of the library's domain. To volunteer to become a review manager, contact the current <<Review Wizards>>.

formal-reviews/modules/ROOT/pages/writing-reviews.adoc

@@ -9,9 +9,9 @@ Official repository: https://github.com/boostorg/website-v2-docs
 = Writing Reviews
 :navtitle: Writing Reviews
 
-The goal of a Boost library review is to improve a candidate library through constructive criticism. At the end a decision must be made: _is the candidate library good enough at this point to accept into Boost?_ If not, we hope to have provided enough constructive criticism for it to be improved and accepted at a later time. The boost:serialization[] library is a good example of how constructive criticism resulted in revisions resulting in an excellent library that was accepted in its second review.
+The goal of a Boost library review is to improve a candidate library through constructive criticism. At the end a decision must be made: _is the candidate library good enough at this point to accept into Boost?_ If not, we hope to have provided enough constructive criticism for it to be improved and accepted at a later time. The boost:serialization[] library is a good example of a library that was originally rejected, but constructive criticism led to revisions resulting in an excellent library that was accepted in its second review.
 
-Your comments may be brief or lengthy. The review manager needs your evaluation of the library. If you identify problems in your evaluation, try to categorize them as _minor_, _serious_, or _showstoppers_.
+Your comments may be brief or lengthy. The review manager needs your evaluation of the library. If you identify problems during your evaluation, try to categorize them as _minor_, _serious_, or _showstoppers_.
 
 Ask questions for the library authors, on the https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost[Boost Developers Mailing List], so all interested parties can see it. Authors are interested in defending their library. If you don't get a response to your question quickly, be patient; if it takes too long or you don't get an answer you feel is sufficient, ask again or try to rephrase the question. Clarity is important, English is not the native language of many Boost developers. Try to get your questions answered before you submit your review.