"Joel de Guzman" <joel@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:ehpck5$rdi$1@sea.gmane.org...
Tom Brinkman wrote:
Thank you! With all due respect to Dr. Reese, I think posting a review and then asking to be emailed for replies is not right. The review is a public affair. We would also like to read about the replies and exchanges that ensue after a reviewer posts his review. A reviewer should also be responsible to answer and reply to the questions and answers related to his review _on_list_ in as much as the one being reviewed (Lubomir et. al.) tries as best as they can to answer and reply to the reviews. It's not a one way street.
Ok, I kinda agree. However, there may have be a reason that they were not able to. Not shur why that would be, but in any case I told him that he could email me the review if he was unable to post it the group himself. In the future, I'll be firmer and polightly insist that they try join the mailing list.
Understood. Thanks!
I disagree absolutely. Having followed the Boost review process over the years, I can remember several where there was a lack of reviews. As Boost can have a large effect on the future standard then it should be possible and as easy as possible for anyone to have their say, whether subscribed to the Boost list or not. There are many reasons why one would not in general wish to subscribe to a mailing list. One of C++'s problems is that the entry level for new potential C++ programmers is too high. The Boost review process doesnt help with this. For example reviews generally take place on the developers list, whereas to get the views of users it should take place on and be focussed on the users list. This would I predict bring a lot more rounded set of opinions and do a little bit towards shaping C++ more to be a user friendly language for entry level programmers. Of course some on the developers may be uncomfortable with that, but getting views and reviews that make you feel uncomfortable is a sign that there is a wide range of views, which is a good thing. Boost shouldnt be an exclusive club. Note that any institution, as it gets older, does become more exclusive and less relevant. This is more so in the case of powerful institutions. Boost is quite powerful as regards C++. There is a natural tendency among experts to be much more interested in the complex, research issues rather than the basics. Also much of the C++ commitees work seems to happen behind closed doors and Boost is quite close to the C++ commitee. These are the kind of signs of a tendency towards exclusivity, which I hope it can be generally agreed is not a good thing. Therefore IMO anyone who wants to do a review should be allowed to do so. regards Andy Little