Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Fiber review January 6-15
From: Rob Stewart (robertstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-16 18:06:57
On Jan 16, 2014, at 10:15 AM, Nat Goodspeed <nat_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Hartmut Kaiser
> <hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 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 this review.
> 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?
Absolutely. A review manager should have done due diligence to be sure the library is ready for inclusion, based upon the review manager's own, biased opinion. Add domain knowledge and interest and it's little wonder the review manager would seem biased in favor of the library. Obviously, a library may enter review in a state the review manager doesn't like, which would make a decision against the library more likely than otherwise. In the end, we look for an objective decision, possibly clarified with review manager's domain knowledge factored into weighing reviewer input.
(Sent from my portable computation engine)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk