I propose these 3 changes (starting with the word ADD: below) to the current review policy in http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html I realize that there is no mention to the word "vote" in the review policy, just "review comments". See message below for rationale on why these may be good changes. ----------------------------------- INTRODUCTION ... The final "accept" or "reject" decision is made by the Review Manager, based on the review comments received from boost mailing list members. ADD: Consensus should be objectively measured with the votes and otherwise the right to accept solely by the review manager could be revoked. ... RESULTS At the conclusion of the comment period, the Review Manager will post a message to the mailing list saying if the library has been accepted or rejected. A rationale is also helpful, but its extent is up to the Review Manager. If there are suggestions, or conditions that must be met before final inclusion, they should be stated. ADD: In conflicting reviews or with little consensus the Review Manager should justify way the library was accepted or not accepted. NOTES FOR REVIEW MANAGERS ... ADD: The review manager must not have or have had business ties with the library author/organization. ... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jose <jmalv04@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:09 PM Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost] [GGL] Bost.Polygon (GTL) vs GGL - rationale To: boost@lists.boost.org Hi, I am not expert in geometry but what matters is that boost continues to provide generic libraries (if possible !) like BGL, GIL, .. I think there is no blame on library authors which make a huge effort. What was broken is the review process, and some of the reasons why the review process was broken were: 1) The result of the review was 6 positive to 4 negative, when boost normally aims for consensus. This is the most objective point. Also, the issues the review manager was proposing to be fixed would not change the votes as the library was not appropiate even for 2D geo applications 2) The scope of GTL was changed before the review (see snippet 2 at the end) but the review docs still mention a wider app focus (see snippet 1 at the end). This confusion appeared when GTL was being reviewed. 3) The review manager didn't have time for the review (if you look at the apology at the beginning of the review email summary) 4) The GGL library proposal, which had been iterating the design with input from boost, in my opinion received an unfair treatment in the way the schedule was managed. 5) Boost failed to set the scope for a geometry library/ies and created tension with candidate library authors There are more points but I don't like long emails. I propose to change the current review process: http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html ----------------- NOTES FOR REVIEW MANAGERS Decides if there is consensus to accept the library, and if there are any conditions attached. ----------------- AMENDMENT 1 that consensus should be objectively measured (with the votes) and otherwise the right to accept solely by the review manager could be revoked. Clearly there was no consensus in this library, and no clear discussion if one single library was possible (I understand your points that multiple libraries in this case may be preferable but still that is not incompatible with a complete design discussion) AMENDMENT 2 The review manager should have or have had no business ties with the library author/organization. Amendment 2 is not related to this review, but this would support the current transparency. I feel that in some cases there might be a vague prejudice in favor of big/important/known organizations to get their libraries accepted regards jose --------------------------------------------- Snippet from Boost.Polygon docs http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/gtl/doc/index.htm "These so-called Boolean algorithms are of significant interest in GIS (Geospatial Information Systems), VLSI CAD as well al other fields of CAD, and many more application areas, and providing them is the primary focus of this library." 7/19/09 I am changing the name of my library from GTL (Geometry Template Library) to boost::polygon and narrowing the scope from "computational geometry" to "polygon manipulation". This scope precisely describes the current scope of what is implemented. It also clarifies the position of the library relative to similar proposals. ------------------------------------------------