Scott McMurray wrote:
2009/11/19 Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@gmail.com>:
I don't think this is a good idea. I participated John Torjo's library and despite the fact I tried to be as objective as I could I ended up comparing my library with John's. As you may imagine, my opinion was biased.
I think intentionally-biased "this is why my way is better" notes from both authors would be a nice way of discussing the various trade-offs in the review.
In that case both authors will most likely give negative reviews to the opponent's library. I know, review managers are not bound with votes, but it still counts in the final review report. I don't think it would be ethical of me to influence review results of my opponent.
I think, the attitude you are expressing should be respected. Formal reviews on the boost list can be quite tough, and although most library contributors, after years of hard work and dedication deserve nothing less
2009/11/19 Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@gmail.com> than appreciation, what they often get is a lot of critique (at a level most developers only dream of). If there are competing libraries, the situation is even harder. For the competing contributors, it is not only difficult to accept and to deal with critique and reject votes expressed by developers, they have also to deal with the difficulties and moral implications of judging their opponent. Rejection votes from the opponent not only can be hard to bear, they also may cause resentments between the competing authors, which IMO can be observed with Luke and Barent currently. This is a luxury the community should not afford because those guys are supposed to work together creatively instead of investing their brainpower in flame wars. I suggest, for the case of competing libraries, that the contributors are supposed to review the opponent's library but to refrain from voting. In their reviews, there should be a special emphasis on appreciation, learning form the others code and a perspective of possible future collaboration. Joachim