Subject: Re: [boost] Shouldn't both logging proposals be reviewed in the same formal review?
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-19 13:50:03
Scott McMurray wrote:
> 2009/11/19 Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]>:
>> I don't think this is a good idea. I participated John Torjo's library and
>> despite the fact I tried to be as objective as I could I ended up comparing
>> my library with John's. As you may imagine, my opinion was biased.
> I think intentionally-biased "this is why my way is better" notes from
> both authors would be a nice way of discussing the various trade-offs
> in the review.
In that case both authors will most likely give negative reviews to the
opponent's library. I know, review managers are not bound with votes,
but it still counts in the final review report. I don't think it would
be ethical of me to influence review results of my opponent.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk