Re: [boost] Draft copy - Call for Submissions - CMake for Boost

Subject: Re: [boost] Draft copy - Call for Submissions - CMake for Boost
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-18 22:19:57

On 10/18/18 2:43 PM, Steven Watanabe via Boost wrote:
> AMDG
> 
> On 10/18/2018 02:43 PM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
>>
>> c) The name of the author of a submission will not be included in the
>> submission.  Authors will be expected to take reasonable efforts to
>> maintain his anonymity via a github repo without a real name assigned,
>> anonymous, email address etc.  We understand that the nature of the
>> submission and debate during subsequent review of the proposals.  Never
>> the less we believe that anonymity can be mostly maintained. The the
>> true identity of the author of the selected proposal will not be
>> revealed until the selection is made.
>>
> 
>    I don't see how this makes sense.  For the most part,
> the code itself will be sufficient to identify the
> author (at least for those of us who have been
> following the discussions of CMake for a while).
> If the code weren't enough, the authors would give
> away their identities in the discussion
> - Either they use their real names in the discussion and
>    we can spot who is defending their own decisions or,
> - They use anonymized names which we can match with their
>    real names by their (well-known) idiosyncrasies.
> (Of course, I'm assuming that the submissions are mostly
> coming from the usual suspects.  Otherwise, we won't
> know who they are anyway, so making it anonymous is
> pointless.)
> 
>> The motivation for this anonymity is to attract submitters who find the
>> boost review process distressing, annoying and/or unpleasant.
> 
> This seems like a bad idea, given that we would
> expect more than a hit-and-run from the submitter.
> 
>> It should
>> also address the concerns of those who beleive that by not being a
>> "boost insider" they won't get fair consideration.  Boost is first and
>> foremost a meritocracy.  We seek the very best in everything regardless
>> of other considerations.
>>
> In Christ,
> Steven Watanabe

Obviously this is a novelty in the context of Boost.  At the same time 
the idea of accepting multiple submissions for the same functionality is 
also a novelty for boost.  I think it is necessary in this case.  But I 
was concerned about complaints that the process might not be fair.  I'm 
also sensitive to complaints that Boost doesn't represent all groups 
"fairly". So I thought I'd include this idea.  It's also true that it's 
orthogonal to the actual substance at hand and I don't have a huge 
amount of personal ego involved in this aspect. I'm happy to go along 
with the consensus.  And I'd like to hear what others think.

Robert Ramey