[boost] Re: Re: [iostreams] Review Results -- Iostreams Accepted

From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-04 15:49:13

It's hard to say whether or when I should step into this discussion, but this
looks like as good a point as any.

"Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 18:01:44 +0300, Peter Dimov wrote
> > Jeff Garland wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > What makes you think that review managers are allowed or encouraged
> > to decide against the majority?
>
> The review manager decides on the library. Nothing, in the process says the
> review manager must go by 'majority' rule -- it just needs to be based on the
> opinions of the reviewers.  But anyway, my point was you are free to try and
> change the process thru discussion if you don't like it.

I agree that in some cases majority rule is not appropriate. Boost is supposed
to be 'peer-reviewed' software. In the academic world, peer-review means papers
are sent to a few selected experts for examination. With Boost, anyone can vote.
Naturally, those who submit reviews tend to be knowledgable, and well-argued
opinions are entitled to equal consideration regardless of whether they come
from recognized experts. But the openness of the process means that not
everything can be decided by the majority if quality is to be kept high (witness
American Idol).

However, whether mild political humor is appropriate for inclusion in boost is
not a question where technical expertise matters. In retrospect, I think it
probably would have been better to take a poll. Personally, I think the example
is unlikely to offend anyone, since even some of the President's strongest
suppoters acknowledge that his claims to speak English and Spanish are
exaggerated.

I don't feel too strongly about the issue, though, since I wrote the example
almost a year ago and to me the humor has largely worn off. I also believe the
material should be presented as a mini-tutorial on writing 'dictionary filters',
so the presidential material, if preserved, would be hardly noticeable.

For the record, at least one person during the review and several others during
pre-review expressed approval of the example. AKAIK, nobody has actually been
offended.

> Finally, I corresponded offlist with Jonathon about the decision and he had a
> suggestion for changing it to a dictionary example which would tie in with
> some of the other examples.  Perhaps he was intimidated by my 'power', but
> only he can say.

Me intimidated? Not likely ;-)

Best Regards,
Jonathan