Jeff Garland wrote:
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:21:59 +0300, Peter Dimov wrote
6) Presidential filter example While many of us see the humor in this, there was at least one objection to introducing 'political comedy' into boost. Overall, the example should be renamed and reformulated since in a few years no one will get the joke anyway. Sorry to go politically correct here, but boost needs to be above the fray.
I probably don't have the same political view as Jonathan,
Nobody has the same political views as me >:->
Yep. But it's not a matter of differing "political views", it is a matter of censorhip. More specifically, an unilateral decision on part of the review manager to censor a submission.
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?
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).
There is a reason why in most civilized societies censorship decisions are handled with care, by a group, following written rules.
That's a silly comparison. Boost is not a 'free speech' zone. If you go over the line on the mailing list a moderator will ask you to step back and will remove you from the list if you continue.
Correct. The moderators are a group, they carefully pick what they reject, and they follow the discussion policy.
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. 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. 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.