Subject: Re: [boost] Shouldn't both logging proposals be reviewed in the same formal review?
From: Stewart, Robert (Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-20 08:42:43
Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
> > Joachim Faulhaber wrote:
> > >
> > > I suggest, for the case of competing libraries, that the
> > > contributors are
> > > supposed to review the opponent's library but to refrain
> > > from voting.
> > +1 (I was already thinking the same.)
> > If a competitor votes, the review manager should ignore it,
> > of course.
> Why should the review manager ignore a YES vote of an author
> of a competing library?
Your question gave me pause, but I stand by my assertion. A competitor will be biased against the competition, so will typically be more negative than an objective reviewer. Hence, a no vote must be discounted on that basis. Knowing that, however, a fair competitor may be inclined to vote yes or tip the scale unduly in favor of the competing library to avoid the appearance of being unfair or biased, rather than because the competing library deserves to be accepted. A vote either way, from a competitor, is uncertain and should be discounted relative to purportedly unbiased reviews from those not authoring a library under review.
We have said that competitors should be required to submit a review because of their domain knowledge and because of the comparative judgments it is likely to contain. The review manager can use the information from such reviews to assist in deciding among the submissions. Any voting, however, is not trustworthy.
Note that the foregoing in no way necessitates simultaneous reviews, but should apply when competing libraries are in the review queue. If a potential competitor has yet to submit a library for review, then the foregoing doesn't apply, though it would be appropriate for that reviewer to disclose their own competing efforts.
Rob Stewart robert.stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer;
Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com
IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk