Hi Fernando, Your rationale below was definitely missing. Thanks! I find it logical that authors from different applications domains will find it difficult to collaborate on a single library unless someone with your experience/vision is guiding and contributing to the process. In my opinion, what is unfair, is that instead of aiming for the initial objective, and voting on that, the scope was reduced before the review to guarantee that the library would be accepted (ignoring that there was another approach). I think this sets a bad precedent, and why I asked for the decision to be reversed because the timing of the reviews is used against the higher objective
Fernando Cacciola wrote: OK, here is another bit of the rationale I intended to include in the results: Accepted libraries are not set on stone. Many have evolved a long way from the fist accepted version and I don't imagine Luke erroneously believing that, since his library was accepted first, he doesn't have to do corrections on the light of GGL and for the sake of the community.
I think this is the theory. In practice, getting the library accepted is the major part.
If fairness is to be considered, I guess one could argue that the first one to had been ready deserved the right to set the reference. Specially if we consider that GGL was not ready for review when Polygon was, so it is not that they ended up with such a relative ordering due to arbitrary scheduling. That could have made the current GGL burden unfair, but it's not how it happened.
I completely disagree, given that polygon scope was 2D. I strongly think the contrary, GGL tries from the getgo to to tackle a broader set of geometries/coordinates although it has other issues. regards