Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Fiber review January 6-15
From: Nat Goodspeed (nat_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-16 10:15:05
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Hartmut Kaiser
> Frankly, I find it to be disturbing to see that the review manager appears
> to have come into this review with the predetermined decision to accept the
> library. But this is purely my impression, others might see it differently.
I will again ask your indulgence to defer an opinion of my function as
a review manager until I have posted my review report. If the
community then feels that I have misrepresented their collective
voice, that would be a good time to say so.
I admit that I am "wearing two hats." As a Boost user I would like to
see Boost adopt something that fits this ecological niche. Like you,
we have code that I would love to replace with an official Boost
As review manager, I will make a sincere attempt to collate and
summarize the responses of those who have invested time and energy in
Isn't it often true that someone willing to serve as review manager
for a Boost review has at least some interest in the subject library?
Would it have improved matters if I had withheld my own opinion from
the discussion? Remaining silent would not have made me more
objective; it would merely have concealed my own bias. Openly stating
my personal bias, in effect, gives me additional incentive to be
careful and thorough in presenting the review results.
Again, though, please withhold judgment until I have done so.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk