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 06:17:29
Your rationale below was definitely missing. Thanks!
I find it logical that authors from different applications domains
will find it difficult to collaborate on a single library unless
someone with your experience/vision is guiding and contributing to the
In my opinion, what is unfair, is that instead of aiming for the
initial objective, and voting on that, the scope was reduced before
the review to guarantee that the library would be accepted (ignoring
that there was another approach). I think this sets a bad precedent,
and why I asked for the decision to be reversed because the timing of
the reviews is used against the higher objective
>> Fernando Cacciola wrote:
> OK, here is another bit of the rationale I intended to include in the
> Accepted libraries are not set on stone. Many have evolved a long way from
> the fist accepted version and I don't imagine Luke erroneously believing
> that, since his library was accepted first, he doesn't have to do
> corrections on the light of GGL and for the sake of the community.
I think this is the theory. In practice, getting the library accepted
is the major part.
> If fairness is to be considered, I guess one could argue that the first one
> to had been ready deserved the right to set the reference. Specially if we
> consider that GGL was not ready for review when Polygon was, so it is not
> that they ended up with such a relative ordering due to arbitrary
> scheduling. That could have made the current GGL burden unfair, but it's not
> how it happened.
I completely disagree, given that polygon scope was 2D. I strongly
think the contrary, GGL tries from the getgo to to tackle a broader
set of geometries/coordinates although it has other issues.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk