From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamgroupstrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-07 15:57:10
>>> I ended up getting into an unpleasant exchange with the library
>>> author, who repeatedly challenged me to suggest concrete changes to
>>> the design to fix the perceived problems. I had examined the library
>>> more thoroughly, my guess is that I would have been able to suggest
>>> improvements. I don't blame the library author in this case; it's
>>> only natural to ask for an alternate design when you are told that
>>> your design is flawed;
>
> Maybe, but you shouldn't feel guilty. The onus is on the proposer to
> come up with a good design.
The question is: How far does a library author need to go in providing
evidence that the design is "good" (which often means different things
to different people, but lets ignore that for the moment)? Does a
proposer need to "prove" that the library design is the best currently
imaginable? While this might be possible for some libraries I don't
think it is generally feasible. More specifically, if a raised point is
so vague that the library author is at a complete loss exactly how an
improvement could be implemented I think it is only fair to turn the
roles around and require the reviewer to at least outline how the
improvement is implementable within the given requirements.
Regards,
-- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.