Subject: Re: [boost] This AFIO review - a modest proposal
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-23 15:33:15
On 8/23/15 11:31 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 23 Aug 2015 at 9:55, Robert Ramey wrote:
>> Reading the other posts I see trouble ahead. There is a strong current
>> that suggests that the library is not ready to be reviewed.
> Well, on that point:
OK - It was just my opinion.
> Is acceptance of AFIO into Boost going to be judged on technical
> reasons, or politics, or "I don't understand the point of this
I guess one would say that acceptance is judged on technical reasons.
But saying that suggests it's not subjective - when it fact it is. A
great library might have really bad documentation and not get accepted.
A poorly implemented library with good documentation might get accepted.
A library of somewhat low demand might not get enough reviews and get
accepted even though it probably shouldn't. In boost we have cases of
all of the above. And of course, we might be willing to be more
tolerant of imperfections for someone who we might feels is in some
sense more deserving. It's not a perfect process, we are human after
all. Given all this - the boost review process is the best thing out
there and it's the thing which makes stand apart from other open source
>> There is also some antipathy regarding they way you've gone about this
>> and used the list so there is less inclination than there might
>> otherwise be to cut you some slack. All this raises the bar to
>> acceptance higher than it might otherwise be - which is already quite high.
> As soon as I challenged the authority of certain people ...
LOL - we get pretty testy at times. I can say I've been subjected to
this at least as much as anyone - and probably given more than my fair
share. I've lightened up as I've gotten older. I don't want to make a
big deal about this other than to mention that one's personality quirks
/ features can make one's life easier, harder, exciting, boring or
whatever and they effect the things one is likely to accompish.
>> I propose that:
>> a) this review be postponed.
> I'll abide by whatever the review manager decides.
I want very much to emphasize that, should the review manager decide to
postpone this, he should do it with the explicit personal promise of
those who have made their reservations known in this thread that they
will comment/review this library as it stands now either on this list or
the incubator. My purpose is to be sure we get an effective, expedient,
review whose outcome will be widely respected and accepted as
legitimate. If we just postpone the review and nothing else is going to
happen, we might just as well move forward and get it over with.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk