From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-26 05:57:17
"Joel de Guzman" <joel_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Tom Brinkman wrote:
>>>> Thank you! With all due respect to Dr. Reese, I think posting a
>>>> review and then asking to be emailed for replies is not right.
>>>> The review is a public affair. We would also like to read about
>>>> the replies and exchanges that ensue after a reviewer posts his
>>>> review. A reviewer should also be responsible to answer and reply
>>>> to the questions and answers related to his review _on_list_ in
>>>> as much as the one being reviewed (Lubomir et. al.) tries as best
>>>> as they can to answer and reply to the reviews. It's not a one
>>>> way street.
>> Ok, I kinda agree. However, there may have be a reason that they were
>> not able to. Not shur why that would be, but in any case I told him
>> that he could email me the review if he was unable to post it the
>> group himself. In the future, I'll be firmer and polightly insist
>> that they try join the mailing list.
> Understood. Thanks!
I disagree absolutely. Having followed the Boost review process over the
years, I can remember several where there was a lack of reviews. As Boost
can have a large effect on the future standard then it should be possible
and as easy as possible for anyone to have their say, whether subscribed to
the Boost list or not. There are many reasons why one would not in general
wish to subscribe to a mailing list.
One of C++'s problems is that the entry level for new potential C++
programmers is too high. The Boost review process doesnt help with this. For
example reviews generally take place on the developers list, whereas to get
the views of users it should take place on and be focussed on the users
list. This would I predict bring a lot more rounded set of opinions and do a
little bit towards shaping C++ more to be a user friendly language for entry
level programmers. Of course some on the developers may be uncomfortable
with that, but getting views and reviews that make you feel uncomfortable is
a sign that there is a wide range of views, which is a good thing.
Boost shouldnt be an exclusive club. Note that any institution, as it gets
older, does become more exclusive and less relevant. This is more so in the
case of powerful institutions. Boost is quite powerful as regards C++.
There is a natural tendency among experts to be much more interested in the
complex, research issues rather than the basics. Also much of the C++
commitees work seems to happen behind closed doors and Boost is quite close
to the C++ commitee. These are the kind of signs of a tendency towards
exclusivity, which I hope it can be generally agreed is not a good thing.
Therefore IMO anyone who wants to do a review should be allowed to do so.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk