On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 18:01:44 +0300, Peter Dimov wrote
Jeff Garland wrote:
Well now at least I think I can understand your obtuse comment from last week. Review managers in Boost organization are given much power and responsibility -- including the ability to decide against the majority. That's a fact, but it can be changed by petitioning the list for a change of process.
What makes you think that review managers are allowed or encouraged to decide against the majority?
The review manager decides on the library. Nothing, in the process says the review manager must go by 'majority' rule -- it just needs to be based on the opinions of the reviewers. But anyway, my point was you are free to try and change the process thru discussion if you don't like it.
It was my judgement, after some evaluation, that the example would be better changed -- not removed (3 reasons given -- some of which did not include 'political correctness'). That's no different from a review manager requiring an interface change to a library that is badly named.
It's different. It was fairly obvious that you decided that the example was unacceptable for political reasons, and then tried to justify you decision using additional non-political arguments (none of which, in my opinion, hold water).
Well, it's 'obvious to you', but that's not how it happened at all. I thought the example name was odd when I first saw it -- not compelling 'on-topic' for an iostreams library. By itself, not enough to worry about. Then a reviewer mentioned the political implications -- which got me thinking about it. Could I think of any other example or documentation in boost that even remotely bordered on a political statement -- no. If this did offend someone could it taint boost -- possibly. Would I use this example if I were trying to get the library into the C++ standard -- nope. Would the value of the example be less valuable if it were changed to be something apolitical -- no, it might even be improved. Therefore it didn't seem like it was worth the risk. As for me injecting my political point of viewpoint (which you know absolutely nothing about), that just isn't the case. I would have the same issue if the example was the 'Presidential Contender Filter' or 'President of France Filter'. Finally, I corresponded offlist with Jonathon about the decision and he had a suggestion for changing it to a dictionary example which would tie in with some of the other examples. Perhaps he was intimidated by my 'power', but only he can say.
But I'm not some sort of dictator here. If you want to have a group discussion/vote on it -- I have no objections. It just seems foolish to me for Boost to allow the any hint of political tint when there is no technical justification.
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.
Basically, my point is that if you want to keep Boost free from examples that you perceive as political, _you_ should ask for a group decision to include a "no policital tint" clause in the appropriate library requirements.
As I said, I have no problem with a group review.
Then you'd be entirely within you right to enforce it - but there would be no need to, because developers will know not to include such content in their submissions.
Perhaps. But even with updated guidelines, there is always the potential that a review manager will have to deal with a new and unique case not explicitly discussed by the guidelines. And no matter the language, the evaluation of what counts as a political tint might be hard. Apparently there is some disagreement in this case... Jeff