Subject: Re: [boost] AFIO review response
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-29 12:04:27
On 29 Aug 2015 at 12:35, AgustÃn K-ballo BergÃ© wrote:
> >>> For the record, I requested that the moderators intervene regarding
> >>> his behaviour early on in this review as I felt no good was going to
> >>> come of it. They declined to do so.
> >> This *sounds* deeply concerning. Rather than making assumptions, I would
> >> appreciate if you could be a bit more concrete on what you mean by it.
> >> If that request took part in email form, perhaps even give us a link to
> >> the thread?
> > I simply forwarded his first two emails with a request that an
> > intervention be made.
> Thanks. Are those two emails these:
Yes this one, where he draws a series of conclusions from a set of
incorrect assumptions, as per his usual style of trying to instil
uncertainty and doubt.
And this one, where he once again accuses me of lying to people, and
does another round of deliberately conflating cherry picked
interpretations to make up some fantastical claim which I note are
always negative and never positive regarding me and my code.
And these were just the first two of a long sequence of more of the
same. Again, always negative about me and my code, never positive.
> > When he then submitted what I
> > would consider a fake review which would have to be counted in AFIO's
> > acceptance or rejection, I felt I was left no choice but to act in my
> > defense as otherwise my library could be rejected for inappropriate
> > reasons.
> That's not how the Boost review process works. Votes aren't counted,
> they are weighted by a criteria of choice of the review manager.
Of course. But please see it from my perspective: you have a highly
regarded senior member of the community and recognised expert in the
field of concurrency saying this stuff. How could one not weight his
For the record, had he not submitted a review, I would not have
responded as I did. Had he made a single valid point about AFIO not
already answered in another thread I would have responded to it.
> > (For the record, I can see given the reviews to date why it might be
> > rejected anyway, but that's not the point here. If it came down to
> > say a score of 3 in favour and 3 against and his review tipped the
> > scales to 4 against, that would be a big problem).
> Again, that's not how the Boost review process works.
I know this. However, numbers do matter.
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk