Re: [boost] Updating the Boost Review Process Was: [GGL] Bost.Polygon (GTL) vs GGL - rationale

Subject: Re: [boost] Updating the Boost Review Process Was: [GGL] Bost.Polygon (GTL) vs GGL - rationale
From: Jose (jmalv04_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-18 06:02:14

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 5:35 AM, John Phillips
<phillips_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>  I did not concern myself with the typo. I am concerned that you want the
> review result for a library overturned when you then claim you don't have
> the expertise to judge whether that is the best decision. In such a case, I
> think a more appropriate statement is to express your concern about the
> process without insisting on overturning a result because the manager did
> something wrong.

As a summary, I don't argue about the quality of the algorithms in
Polygon, the author and reviewer are both experts.

The community objective is to get a generic library were multiple
authors can eventually contribute their algorithms, like Boost BGL or
the competing CGAL. This situation is one of the cases were
cooperating is justified and worthwhile for everybody.

In this case both authors are really involved, wrote Boostcon09
papers, and they were both committed towards a COMMON GOAL. If I look
at the end of the abstract of the GTL paper presented to Boostcon  I
think it clearly shows what the community was aiming for:

"This paper discusses the specific needs of generic geometry
programming and how these needs are met by the concepts-based type
system that makes the generic API possible"

>  Since you blame the policy and schedule, please provide a proposed change
> in the policy that would prevent this from happening. Remember when you
> provide it the factual details I have provided about when information to
> base a decision on was available, since any so called solution that ignores
> these details is useless.

The idea is:

"In cases where the Boost community is aiming for a broad library
useful in multiple application domains, accepting a new library that
doesn't meet the generic objectives should be driven by consensus from
the different application domains represented in the review" (the
actual wording should be better and how consensus is measured should
be clarified, to me consensus is measured by votes but there has to be
a minimum number of votes also)

>  The existence of another library is not a persuasive technical argument in
> this case, nor is the name change for the Polygon library. I have explained
> why above, as well as in other responses.

Exactly, I am not trying to make a technical argument! I If what I
wrote above is not clear, I don't have further to add!

thank you for getting interested in the issues I pointed out. I don't
want to go on an endless debate about this so take what's useful (if
anything) and ignore the rest I said. You make good technical
arguments that I will not answer b/c is not the issue I'm pointing
out.

Regards
jose