Hi Jose,
The idea is that if there is clearly two different overall opinions, and the NOs are not going to be reversed by the changes anyway, then the reasoning for the acceptance has to be well justified OR the judgement of the review manager should be questioned. Otherwise, you're ignoring the No group!
Absolutely. And this is the very reason why I took SO long in posting the review results: I had to objetively justify my decision considering each NO vote in turn. I did consider the objections VERY carefully, is just that I didn't have the time to write down the justifications in the result because the GGL review started and it would have been a huge mess if the results from Boost.Polygon were still unknown, so I had to rush into posting the results, entirely unlike the way I planned it. But of course I should have realized that the decision itself ended up looking subjetive and unjustified. Apologies for that, but believe me it was not at all like that. Naturally, you and/or each of those who voted NO are more than welcome to challenge my reasons for accepting it.
With broad libraries covering different application domains, it seems obvious that the above might happen, and it's not a question of one vs the other but of broadening the purpose of the library (if technically possible!)
The earlier boost libraries were more fundamental and broadly useful but some of the newer libraries are specific to application domains, not to all boost/c++ users.
important than the count of votes is the reasoning given in the reviews. The manager looks at the reasons given and tries to determine how deeply they affect the library. Even when some persuasive negative reasons are given, the manager may decide that the changes to the library needed to address the complaints are not so central that they preclude acceptance. Such a decision has to come from the manager's understanding of the library, the submitter, and the needed changes and I do not think a formal rule for how to make such a decision would be a good idea. The manager is selected in part because the Wizards think such decisions will be made well. If we make a mistake in selecting a manager, then we will have to step in and adjust the decision but I am not convinced we made such a mistake.
Well, maybe you made a mistake! If not, then please take action and FIX the situation. Also, the reviewer has to acknowledge that he has time to give a timely decision and engage all reviewers. This takes a lot of time !!
Again I had time to do the review as carefully as it has to. I stop having time after the review was finished and when I was working on explaining my reasons.
If you look at the specific case, the reviewer is very experienced and has given lots of advice to one author, as acknowledged in one boostcon paper but the other application domain has been mostly ignored.
I was not ignoring GIS at all. If you dig out the discussions from many years back (and some not so old) you will find that I have given lots of advice to the other author as well, and very well to the point of the GIS application domain. Best -- Fernando Cacciola SciSoft Consulting, Founder http://www.scisoft-consulting.com