On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 20:48:00 +0300, Peter Dimov wrote
Never so far has a review manager decided against the majority.
And I'm not either, but anyway this is all moot....see below.
But anyway, my point was you are free to try and change the process thru discussion if you don't like it.
The process has worked well so far and needs no change, in my opinion.
I agree.
Think about it this way. Someone _might potentially_ be offended by the example, so you want it removed/changed. I am offended _right now_ by your decision to remove/change the example, because I deem it unjustified censorship.
I'm sorry you are offended, but oh well. Anyway, I'm not going to apologize, because I don't believe I've done anything wrong.
This is not the point at all. Let's see if I can clarify:
No, you don't have to apologize to or accommodate people that are overly sensitive to censorship.
By the same logic, Boost doesn't have to apologize to or accommodate people that are overly sensitive to president speech disorder jokes.
No?
Nice trap ;-) But, it still isn't worth the risk. Again, there is not library in Boost today that has an example that could even remotely be deemed political -- you want to change that -- I disagree. I challenge you to refute the logic. You haven't -- you just labeled it censorship and acted like I've done some awful...
Right. Which is why things like that are decided on a case by case basis by the reviewers. We only need procedures for the cases where this process doesn't work.
Apparently, you think that in this case the majority is wrong. Therefore, we need procedures.
There is no 'majority' on your side. Sure, a couple of people have posted since the results were announced saying they liked the example, but during the review most people ignored or did not comment on the example. The one review comment was negative. Adding in my own thinking that was 2 negatives. Did I go back and take a poll of the rest of the reviewers before deciding on this point? No, that's not really dictated by the process nor I believe justified in this case -- otherwise review managers would have to re-poll the group on every issue they make a decision on. Which issues are important enough to ask the author to change is at the decision of the review manager. Anyway, I believe we've already wasted way too much time on this. BTW, maybe we should limit the poll on this issue to folks that reviewed the library. That would eliminate your opinion on the subject... Jeff