From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-04 09:22:55
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:21:59 +0300, Peter Dimov wrote
> >>> 6) Presidential filter example
> >>> While many of us see the humor in this, there was at least one
> >>> objection to introducing 'political comedy' into boost. Overall,
> >>> the example should be renamed and reformulated since in a few
> >>> years no one will get the joke anyway. Sorry to go politically
> >>> correct here, but boost needs to be above the fray.
> >> I probably don't have the same political view as Jonathan,
> > Nobody has the same political views as me >:->
> Yep. But it's not a matter of differing "political views", it is a
> matter of censorhip. More specifically, an unilateral decision on
> part of the review manager to censor a submission.
Well now at least I think I can understand your obtuse comment from last week.
Review managers in Boost organization are given much power and responsibility
-- including the ability to decide against the majority. That's a fact, but it
can be changed by petitioning the list for a change of process.
It was my judgement, after some evaluation, that the example would be better
changed -- not removed (3 reasons given -- some of which did not include
'political correctness'). That's no different from a review manager requiring
an interface change to a library that is badly named.
> There is a reason why in most civilized societies censorship
> decisions are handled with care, by a group, following written rules.
That's a silly comparison. Boost is not a 'free speech' zone. If you go over
the line on the mailing list a moderator will ask you to step back and will
remove you from the list if you continue.
But I'm not some sort of dictator here. If you want to have a group
discussion/vote on it -- I have no objections. It just seems foolish to me
for Boost to allow the any hint of political tint when there is no technical
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk