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 19:17:59

Hi Jose,

> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 5:09 PM, John Phillips
> <phillips_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>  The author, the reviewers, and the review manager were also all quite
>> conscious of the existence of GGL. This existence was not considered a show
>> stopper in any of the reviews posted, which is where the Boost community
>> expresses such concerns.
> 
> Obviously! A paper, a presentation and multiple iterations had been
> produced and discussion ensued.
> 
> It is obvious that the GTL author and the reviewer had close ties

It might be implied but it is definitely not obvious, and more importantly, 
totally incorrect.

So for the record I have absolutely no close ties, of any nature, with neither 
Intel nor Luke.

>  as
> clearly acknowledged in the GTL paper. I assume these were just email
> discussions

You assume right as Luke already clarified.

> Again, yes, the reviewer is an expert in the field but not in the
> other application domain (GIS)

You must have second guess that from somwhere, but, just for the record, you are 
wrong.
I have expertise in several dommains where geometric computing is applicable: 
CAD, GIS, Computer Graphics (which is a quite different domain with 
significantly different requirements) and Computer Generated Imaginery (also 
different).

 > that was of interest to reviewers.
> Otherwise the feedback would not have been so directed to one of the
> libraries vs the other.
> 

Please don't forget that GGL was not readily available when Boost.Polygon was 
reviewed, and still not when I was drawing the conclusion for the result.

So there was certainly no contention between libraries *at all*.

Best

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