From: Maarten Verhage (m_r_verhage_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-07-18 14:54:54
>> To add to Mateusz: by sending your criticism privately you remove the
>> opportunity for others to work on this issue. Maybe the maintainer of the
>> library has no time to do it, but someone else feels like giving it a
>> shot. Issues need to be public.
>> It is also a sudden change in your attitude, Maarten. You started this
>> thread with a public criticism about the quality of "the Boost docs", and
>> now you prefer to send your comments for specific improvements privately?
>> I think all Boost authors can handle public criticism, especially if it
>> is written in a respectful and constructive way. If they disagree
>> strongly with you, a maintainer can always just delete the issue.
> I agree that open source is best done in the public.
> Just as a follow-up, Joel responded the day the email was received and
> encouraged Maarten to open a github issue ending with: "I think it's
> best to have this public so people, including me and Michael, can
> discuss freely in a more accessible manner than email."
> I hope all of these people that are concerned about keeping things
> public will actually help out with the docs.
> Michael Caisse
> Ciere Consulting
Sorry, it was a bad decision to sent a private email to Michael and Joel. I
have absolutely no objection to have a public discussion about it. Now I
have posted a message on the Boost Spirit general mailing list.
About opening a Github issue:
My message on the Boost Spirit mailing list. contains the following
Joel suggested me to open an "issue" on Github
https://github.com/boostorg/spirit/issues , However when I look into
existing issues people posted there I believe the audience is already on an
advanced level about Spirit. Instead I can use some feedback on the
suggestions that I share from other beginners with Spirit. Therefore I
decided to post here on this mailing list. I believe when there is some
agreement for documentation suggestions from multiple people it is more
rewarding for the people rewriting documentation parts, because it is known
to be helpful.
So that's my motivation to post there.
As Michael said I really hope people who have ideas about documentation will
join in. And "speaking for myself now" are willing to subscribe on the Boost
Spirit general mailing list to reply on my message: "Ideas for documentation
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk