From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-04 10:01:44
Jeff Garland wrote:
> 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.
What makes you think that review managers are allowed or encouraged to
decide against the majority?
> 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.
It's different. It was fairly obvious that you decided that the example was
unacceptable for political reasons, and then tried to justify you decision
using additional non-political arguments (none of which, in my opinion, hold
water).
>> 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.
Correct. The moderators are a group, they carefully pick what they reject,
and they follow the discussion policy.
> 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.
Think about it this way. Someone _might potentially_ be offended by the
example, so you want it removed/changed. I am offended _right now_ by your
decision to remove/change the example, because I deem it unjustified
censorship.
Basically, my point is that if you want to keep Boost free from examples
that you perceive as political, _you_ should ask for a group decision to
include a "no policital tint" clause in the appropriate library
requirements. Then you'd be entirely within you right to enforce it - but
there would be no need to, because developers will know not to include such
content in their submissions.