Thank you! With all due respect to Dr. Reese, I think posting a review and then asking to be emailed for replies is not right. The review is a public affair. We would also like to read about the replies and exchanges that ensue after a reviewer posts his review. A reviewer should also be responsible to answer and reply to the questions and answers related to his review _on_list_ in as much as the one being reviewed (Lubomir et. al.) tries as best as they can to answer and reply to the reviews. It's not a one way street.
Ok, I kinda agree. However, there may have be a reason that they were not able to. Not shur why that would be, but in any case I told him that he could email me the review if he was unable to post it the group himself. In the future, I'll be firmer and polightly insist that they try join the mailing list.
Tom Brinkman wrote:
Thank you! With all due respect to Dr. Reese, I think posting a review and then asking to be emailed for replies is not right. The review is a public affair. We would also like to read about the replies and exchanges that ensue after a reviewer posts his review. A reviewer should also be responsible to answer and reply to the questions and answers related to his review _on_list_ in as much as the one being reviewed (Lubomir et. al.) tries as best as they can to answer and reply to the reviews. It's not a one way street.
Ok, I kinda agree. However, there may have be a reason that they were not able to. Not shur why that would be, but in any case I told him that he could email me the review if he was unable to post it the group himself. In the future, I'll be firmer and polightly insist that they try join the mailing list.
Understood. Thanks! Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Tom Brinkman wrote:
Thank you! With all due respect to Dr. Reese, I think posting a review and then asking to be emailed for replies is not right. The review is a public affair. We would also like to read about the replies and exchanges that ensue after a reviewer posts his review. A reviewer should also be responsible to answer and reply to the questions and answers related to his review _on_list_ in as much as the one being reviewed (Lubomir et. al.) tries as best as they can to answer and reply to the reviews. It's not a one way street. Ok, I kinda agree. However, there may have be a reason that they were not able to. Not shur why that would be, but in any case I told him that he could email me the review if he was unable to post it the group himself. In the future, I'll be firmer and polightly insist that they try join the mailing list.
Understood. Thanks!
Regards,
Well, before we go overboard, according to the process, private reviews are allowed - from: http://www.boost.org/more/formal_review_process.htm Boost mailing list members are encouraged to submit Formal Review comments: * Publicly on the mailing list. * Privately to the Review Manager. There are valid reasons for some folks to submit private reviews. Not sure that's exactly the case here, but we shouldn't just assume everything is done in public....even though the vast majority of reviews are public. Overall, I can understand why someone might not want to join another mailing list, so on balance, I'd hate to see an useful review like this lost b/c of someone being forced to join the list. Jeff
Jeff Garland wrote:
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Tom Brinkman wrote:
Thank you! With all due respect to Dr. Reese, I think posting a review and then asking to be emailed for replies is not right. The review is a public affair. We would also like to read about the replies and exchanges that ensue after a reviewer posts his review. A reviewer should also be responsible to answer and reply to the questions and answers related to his review _on_list_ in as much as the one being reviewed (Lubomir et. al.) tries as best as they can to answer and reply to the reviews. It's not a one way street. Ok, I kinda agree. However, there may have be a reason that they were not able to. Not shur why that would be, but in any case I told him that he could email me the review if he was unable to post it the group himself. In the future, I'll be firmer and polightly insist that they try join the mailing list. Understood. Thanks!
Regards,
Well, before we go overboard, according to the process, private reviews are allowed - from:
http://www.boost.org/more/formal_review_process.htm Boost mailing list members are encouraged to submit Formal Review comments:
* Publicly on the mailing list. * Privately to the Review Manager.
There are valid reasons for some folks to submit private reviews. Not sure that's exactly the case here, but we shouldn't just assume everything is done in public....even though the vast majority of reviews are public. Overall, I can understand why someone might not want to join another mailing list, so on balance, I'd hate to see an useful review like this lost b/c of someone being forced to join the list.
I don't think that's the case here. In this case, the review is meant to be _public_ and forwarded through the Review Manager. The review, being public, has an effect on other participants in the review. In this case, the said review should be subject to public discussion which ultimately should involve the reviewer. If the review is indeed meant to be private, then there's no point in posting it to the list. I find private reviews kinda odd though. Imagine a case with all favorable public reviews but with more private unfavorable reviews. It would be surprising if the outcome would be negative. How would the folks being reviewed have a chance to defend the library against unfavorable private reviews? How would the review manager share its decision points? Keep in mind that it typically takes years to craft a good library and a reviewer typically spends, at best, a few days studying it. It is not fair not to give the authors a chance to defend themselves. There's a big probability that the reviewer missed some things important that only the library authors can point out. All this will not happen with private reviews. I move to remove private reviews from the review process. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Joel de Guzman wrote:
I move to remove private reviews from the review process.
I agree that the review text should become public. A reason for not submitting a review to the list would be that the reviewer is not subscribed on it and doesn't intend to subscribe (e.g. an expert on the particular field covered by the library under review but without much interest for Boost in general). So instead of eliminating the opportunity to submit reviews directly to the review manager, I'd like to see adding of "who will then forward the review text to the mailing list" after "Privately to the Review Manager". Regards, m Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
| -----Original Message----- | From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org | [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Martin Wille | Sent: 26 October 2006 12:23 | To: boost@lists.boost.org | Subject: Re: [boost] GIL Review | | Joel de Guzman wrote: | | > I move to remove private reviews from the review process. | | I agree that the review text should become public. | | A reason for not submitting a review to the list would be that the | reviewer is not subscribed on it and doesn't intend to | subscribe (e.g. | an expert on the particular field covered by the library | under review | but without much interest for Boost in general). | | So instead of eliminating the opportunity to submit reviews | directly to | the review manager, I'd like to see adding of "who will then | forward the | review text to the mailing list" after "Privately to the | Review Manager". I agree strongly with this - the expertise of the Boost group is thin in some fields, especially applications - like Math functions and statistics ;-) It would be foolish to do anything to make getting comment from experts difficult. Joinging the group is not totally hassle free. But I also strongly agree that the text of their reviews must be made public. (And their name, but not necessarily their email address which may thereby be exposed to spam). Paul
Paul A Bristow wrote:
| I agree that the review text should become public. | | A reason for not submitting a review to the list would be that the | reviewer is not subscribed on it and doesn't intend to | subscribe (e.g. | an expert on the particular field covered by the library | under review | but without much interest for Boost in general). | | So instead of eliminating the opportunity to submit reviews | directly to | the review manager, I'd like to see adding of "who will then | forward the | review text to the mailing list" after "Privately to the | Review Manager".
I agree strongly with this - the expertise of the Boost group is thin in some fields, especially applications - like Math functions and statistics ;-)
It would be foolish to do anything to make getting comment from experts difficult.
Joinging the group is not totally hassle free.
But I also strongly agree that the text of their reviews must be made public.
(And their name, but not necessarily their email address which may thereby be exposed to spam).
Ok, I can be agreeable to this middle ground. However, be reminded that sending in a review is not the end of it. Typically, there will be discussions (many times extensive). It is not uncommon that the reviewer might have missed something that the author can fill in. Sometimes other people involved in the review might want further questions, or give rebuttals, etc. Someone must take the responsibility of being a conduit and ensure that the proper communication is not severed. At the very least, this type of review should be discouraged. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
"Joel de Guzman" <joel@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:ehpck5$rdi$1@sea.gmane.org...
Tom Brinkman wrote:
Thank you! With all due respect to Dr. Reese, I think posting a review and then asking to be emailed for replies is not right. The review is a public affair. We would also like to read about the replies and exchanges that ensue after a reviewer posts his review. A reviewer should also be responsible to answer and reply to the questions and answers related to his review _on_list_ in as much as the one being reviewed (Lubomir et. al.) tries as best as they can to answer and reply to the reviews. It's not a one way street.
Ok, I kinda agree. However, there may have be a reason that they were not able to. Not shur why that would be, but in any case I told him that he could email me the review if he was unable to post it the group himself. In the future, I'll be firmer and polightly insist that they try join the mailing list.
Understood. Thanks!
I disagree absolutely. Having followed the Boost review process over the years, I can remember several where there was a lack of reviews. As Boost can have a large effect on the future standard then it should be possible and as easy as possible for anyone to have their say, whether subscribed to the Boost list or not. There are many reasons why one would not in general wish to subscribe to a mailing list. One of C++'s problems is that the entry level for new potential C++ programmers is too high. The Boost review process doesnt help with this. For example reviews generally take place on the developers list, whereas to get the views of users it should take place on and be focussed on the users list. This would I predict bring a lot more rounded set of opinions and do a little bit towards shaping C++ more to be a user friendly language for entry level programmers. Of course some on the developers may be uncomfortable with that, but getting views and reviews that make you feel uncomfortable is a sign that there is a wide range of views, which is a good thing. Boost shouldnt be an exclusive club. Note that any institution, as it gets older, does become more exclusive and less relevant. This is more so in the case of powerful institutions. Boost is quite powerful as regards C++. There is a natural tendency among experts to be much more interested in the complex, research issues rather than the basics. Also much of the C++ commitees work seems to happen behind closed doors and Boost is quite close to the C++ commitee. These are the kind of signs of a tendency towards exclusivity, which I hope it can be generally agreed is not a good thing. Therefore IMO anyone who wants to do a review should be allowed to do so. regards Andy Little
participants (6)
-
Andy Little -
Jeff Garland -
Joel de Guzman -
Martin Wille -
Paul A Bristow -
Tom Brinkman