Subject: Re: [boost] Shouldn't both logging proposals be reviewed in the same formal review?
From: Joachim Faulhaber (afojgo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-19 15:30:41
2009/11/19 Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]>
> 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
>>> despite the fact I tried to be as objective as I could I ended up
>>> 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.
> I think, the attitude you are expressing should be respected. Formal
reviews on the boost list can be quite tough, and although most library
contributors, after years of hard work and dedication deserve nothing less
than appreciation, what they often get is a lot of critique (at a level most
developers only dream of).
If there are competing libraries, the situation is even harder. For the
competing contributors, it is not only difficult to accept and to deal with
critique and reject votes expressed by developers, they have also to deal
with the difficulties and moral implications of judging their opponent.
Rejection votes from the opponent not only can be hard to bear, they also
may cause resentments between the competing authors, which IMO can be
observed with Luke and Barent currently. This is a luxury the community
should not afford because those guys are supposed to work together
creatively instead of investing their brainpower in flame wars.
I suggest, for the case of competing libraries, that the contributors are
supposed to review the opponent's library but to refrain from voting.
In their reviews, there should be a special emphasis on appreciation,
learning form the others code and a perspective of possible future
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk