Subject: Re: [boost] Updating the Boost Review Process Was: [GGL] Bost.Polygon (GTL) vs GGL - rationale
From: Simonson, Lucanus J (lucanus.j.simonson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-20 16:47:30
Barend Gehrels wrote:
> I reacted on Luke's answer yesterday but I kept thinking about this
>> [...] I went out of my way to be positive and friendly in my
>> response, but I was concerned that your benchmark results would kill
>> my library's chances in review, which they very nearly did. [...]
> Luke, I want to make my apologies about all those benchmarks,
> explicitly. Since last day, realizing your feelings, your real
> I'm convinced now that I should not have published them during your
> review. I regret this, and I want to apologize now. I measured things;
> however, a week ago you opened my eyes, that within a night the
> could be measured.
> Having read your open message, I first didn't believe you, honestly,
> but after your answer I started to feel the threat you must have
> felt. We
> wanted to be open with you, convince you and invite you, very true,
> all that together was unfortunate. I did not realize that because you
> stayed friendly, as you've written. But now I'm feeling very sorry
> this all.
> When your review was there, I first didn't want to vote but in the
> end I
> did. I voted mainly based on my own benchmarks. But they can be
> reversed. My description was way too explicit and inappropriate. I
> apologize for that too. I would wish, if that would have been
> to retract my no-vote and all the objections I did express.
> I was surprised, and I really appreciate, that you didn't mirror that,
> you voted for accepting our library, with reservations, but in an
> impartial way.
> Yesterday I wrote that we should go on and you accepted that
> immediately. Thanks for that, great, and again, I'm feeling very
> Best regards, Barend
Thank you, this means a lot to me.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk