I have noticed that on the most controversial reviews there has been a trend of people arguing their specific stance on the proposal beyond the formal response. I am referring to the instances when somebody formally reviews a proposal but keeps responding to other peoples proposals in order to reiterate their position.
I'm all for debate and bike shedding but I don't think a review thread is the right place:
1) it makes it difficult for review managers to gather all the input
2) it distracts from other reviewer's input
3) turns reviews into heated discussions that discourage actual formal reviews.
I recently saw this in the sealed by default review but I have seen it before.
Perhaps the review manager can state that every person should only respond once or twice to the public formal review thread?
Another thing I have noticed is people giving .5 , +0 reviews. I know we are not voting here per se but I fail to see how these reviews help the review manager or the community make a decision for or against the proposal; perhaps this could be addressed in a different thread. I just feel that when somebody gives a 0, .5 review, it encourages people to respond to the reviewer in trying to convince them into a side. My recommendation is that people who are not sure should wait for other people to give concrete input to inform a concrete response.