Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: [boost] Updating the Boost Review Process Was: [GGL] Bost.Polygon (GTL) vs GGL - rationale
From: Jose (jmalv04_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-16 06:25:04

I propose these 3 changes (starting with the word ADD: below) to the
current review policy in

I realize that there is no mention to the word "vote" in the review
policy, just "review comments". See message below for rationale on why
these may be good changes.

The final "accept" or "reject" decision is made by the Review Manager,
based on the review comments received from boost mailing list members.
ADD: Consensus should be objectively measured with the votes and
otherwise the right to accept solely by the review manager could be
At the conclusion of the comment period, the Review Manager will post
a message to the mailing list saying if the library has been accepted
or rejected. A rationale is also helpful, but its extent is up to the
Review Manager. If there are suggestions, or conditions that must be
met before final inclusion, they should be stated.
ADD: In conflicting reviews or with little consensus the Review
Manager should justify way the library was accepted or not accepted.
ADD: The review manager must not have or have had business ties with
the library author/organization.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jose <jmalv04_at_[hidden]>
Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost] [GGL] Bost.Polygon (GTL) vs GGL - rationale
To: boost_at_[hidden]


I am not expert in geometry but what matters is that boost continues
to provide generic libraries (if possible !) like BGL, GIL, ..

I think there is no blame on library authors which make a huge effort.
What was broken is the review process, and some of the reasons why the
review process was broken were:

1) The result of the review was 6 positive to 4 negative, when boost
normally aims for consensus. This is the most objective point. Also,
the issues the review manager was proposing to be fixed would not
change the votes as the library was not appropiate even for 2D geo

2) The scope of GTL was changed before the review (see snippet 2 at
the end) but the review docs still mention a wider app focus (see
snippet 1 at the end). This confusion appeared when GTL was being

3) The review manager didn't have time for the review (if you look at
the apology at the beginning of the review email summary)

4) The GGL library proposal, which had been iterating the design with
input from boost, in my opinion received an unfair treatment
in the way the schedule was managed.

5) Boost failed to set the scope for a geometry library/ies and
created tension with candidate library authors

There are more points but I don't like long emails.

I propose to change the current review process:
Decides if there is consensus to accept the library, and if there are
any conditions attached.

that consensus should be objectively measured (with the votes) and
otherwise the right to accept solely by the review manager could be

Clearly there was no consensus in this library, and no clear
discussion if one single library was possible (I understand your
points that multiple libraries in this case may be preferable but
still that is not incompatible with a complete design discussion)

The review manager should have or have had no business ties with the
library author/organization.

Amendment 2 is not related to this review, but this would support the
current transparency. I feel that in some cases there might be a vague
prejudice in favor of big/important/known organizations to get their
libraries accepted


Snippet from Boost.Polygon docs

"These so-called Boolean algorithms are of significant interest in GIS
(Geospatial Information Systems), VLSI CAD as well al other fields of
CAD, and many more application areas, and providing them is the
primary focus of this library."


I am changing the name of my library from GTL (Geometry Template
Library) to boost::polygon and narrowing the scope from "computational
geometry" to "polygon manipulation".  This scope precisely describes
the current scope of what is implemented.  It also clarifies the
position of the library relative to similar proposals.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at