Subject: Re: [boost] Updating the Boost Review Process Was: [GGL] Bost.Polygon (GTL) vs GGL - rationale
From: Jose (jmalv04_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-19 05:47:13
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Fernando Cacciola
> Hi Jose,
>> 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.
Although my words were poorly worded and I apologized, I wanted to add
that the review policy doesn't say anything against this so it would
not necessarily be negative
>> clearly acknowledged in the GTL paper. I assume these were just email
> 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)
>> 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
> So there was certainly no contention between libraries *at all*.
Can you clarify ? I don't understand what contention means here ?
Also, thank you for joining the thread. I didn't like that you were
not present in the thread and why I contacted you
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk