From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-04 09:22:55
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Jeff