|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Michael Heidemann wrote:
> I got a hold vote some time ago to the part:
> http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/3004p07.dat
>
> I do not agree with Steffen.
>
> I think we should try to be realistic.
>
> What is your opinion? And what is the opinion of the admins?
>
> cu
> MikeHeide
Looking at the comments so far we seem to be answering two different questions
so I'm going to explicitly ask both of them:
Should we try to model the idealised part?
Should a part by held if it matches a real part but not an "ideal" part?
Tim
|
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Timothy Gould wrote:
> Looking at the comments so far we seem to be answering two different questions
> so I'm going to explicitly ask both of them:
>
> Should we try to model the idealised part?
>
> Should a part by held if it matches a real part but not an "ideal" part?
This thread also seems to have brought up another very important question:
Are the current review policies too strict, preventing parts that are "good
enough" from getting in to users' hands in a timely manner?
I've seen a number of posts in this thread complaining about the standard of
perfection required to get parts approved, but I haven't seen any posts arguing
that the current way is good. My personal opinion is that we should officially
sanction "(needs work)" in the title as a method of getting files into the
official library that have room for improvement, but it's not clear what what
the general consensus is.
I read the reviewing FAQ, and it definitely seems to encourage the current
practices.
--Travis
|
|
|
> I read the reviewing FAQ, and it definitely seems to encourage the current
> practices.
>
> --Travis
That's why as a part reviewer I try to follow this guidelines and I am much
stricter that my own opinion would lead me. Yes, I am for some relaxation of the
rules in order to get more "good enough" parts.
Philo
|
|
|