Re: [boost] GIL - Generic Image Library Review - Begins

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-06 13:47:50

"Andy Little" <andy_at_[hidden]> writes:

> "Tom Brinkman" <reportbase_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
> news:30f04db60610051851x13a53e92s8c3ec296a4ec8689_at_mail.gmail.com...
>> from Andy Little
>>
>>>> Are the GIL Authors interested interested in defending their
>>>> library against my criticisms or do they expect it to get into
>>>> boost by default?  If it does get in to Boost without any defence
>>>> whatsoever, then it will confirm some suspicions (I currently
>>>> think are unfounded) I have about Boost.  Thats some comment, I'd
>>>> like to know more about what your suspicions are?
>
> The main one is that the deal is already sealed for this library. 

What deal?  How do you imagine it might've been sealed?

> I hope that is wrong as I said.

Is there any way the library could now be accepted without confirming
your suspicions?

>> As far as GIL the review, today is the first day of the review so
>> give the authors a break.
>
> Well, my original post has been around for three days or more, which
> AFAICS is adequate time to prepare a response. 

You mean you posted it before the review?

> It seemed to me like the GIL authors had just decided to ignore my
> comments. 

I think that was a demonstrably premature conclusion.

I have to say, Andy, that while I wasn't particularly happy about the
feeding frenzy of critical responses to your post, I understand why it
happened.

To vaguely allude to suspicions about boost, and then imply that the
Boost community operates by "sealing deals" outside the review process
is an attack on the integrity of that process, which is at the very
foundation of Boost.  It's no wonder many Boosters took that
personally.

Furthermore, the way you did it, offering yourself "plausible
deniability" with the remark about your suspicions being unfounded, is
the sort of thing that undermines the atmosphere of trust and
collegiality many of us have worked hard to create.  It's like putting
question marks in newspaper headlines, e.g.:

   DOES ANDY LITTLE SMOKE CRACK?

   Dateline London: Unidentified sources in Downing Street claim that
   someone in the Boost developer community is smoking crack on the
   back steps.  Could it be Andy Little?  

If you think something is wrong here, just come out and say it, and
take responsibility for your standing behind your claim.  Otherwise,
if you want to nurse your suspicions, that's your business, but please
keep them to yourself.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com