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:
> 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.Â 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.Â We understand that the nature of the
>> submission and debate during subsequent review of the proposals.Â 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
>> 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.Â Boost is first and
>> foremost a meritocracy.Â 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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk