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: Fernando Cacciola (fernando.cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-18 18:04:51

Hi Jose,

> The
> idea is that if there is clearly two different overall opinions, and
> the NOs are not going to be reversed by the changes anyway, then the
> reasoning for the acceptance has to be well justified OR the judgement
> of the review manager should be questioned. Otherwise, you're ignoring
> the No group!

Absolutely.

And this is the very reason why I took SO long in posting the review results: I 
had to objetively justify my decision considering each NO vote in turn.

I did consider the objections VERY carefully, is just that I didn't have the 
time to write down the justifications in the result because the GGL review 
started and it would have been a huge mess if the results from Boost.Polygon 
were still unknown, so I had to rush into posting the results, entirely unlike 
the way I planned it.

But of course I should have realized that the decision itself ended up looking 
subjetive and unjustified. Apologies for that, but believe me it was not at all 
like that.

Naturally, you and/or each of those who voted NO are more than welcome to 
challenge my reasons for accepting it.

> 
> With broad libraries covering different application domains, it seems
> obvious that the above might happen, and it's not a question of one vs
> the other but of broadening the purpose of the library (if technically
> possible!)
> 
> The earlier boost libraries were more fundamental and broadly useful
> but some of the newer libraries are specific to application domains,
> not to all boost/c++ users.
> 
>> important than the count of votes is the reasoning given in the reviews. The
>> manager looks at the reasons given and tries to determine how deeply they
>> affect the library. Even when some persuasive negative reasons are given,
>> the manager may decide that the changes to the library needed to address the
>> complaints are not so central that they preclude acceptance. Such a decision
>> has to come from the manager's understanding of the library, the submitter,
>> and the needed changes and I do not think a formal rule for how to make such
>> a decision would be a good idea. The manager is selected in part because the
>> Wizards think such decisions will be made well. If we make a mistake in
>> selecting a manager, then we will have to step in and adjust the decision
>> but I am not convinced we made such a mistake.
> 
> Well, maybe you made a mistake! If not, then please take action and
> FIX the situation. Also, the reviewer has to acknowledge that he has
> time to give a timely decision and engage all reviewers. This takes a
> lot of time !!
> 
Again I had time to do the review as carefully as it has to. I stop having time 
after the review was finished and when I was working on explaining my reasons.

> If you look at the specific case, the reviewer is very experienced and
> has given lots of advice to one author, as acknowledged in one
> boostcon paper but the other application domain has been mostly
> ignored.

I was not ignoring GIS at all.
If you dig out the discussions from many years back (and some not so old) you 
will find that I have given lots of advice to the other author as well, and very 
well to the point of the GIS application domain.

Best

--
Fernando Cacciola
SciSoft Consulting, Founder
http://www.scisoft-consulting.com