Subject:
|
Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Mar 2002 22:10:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
390 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Thomas Garrison writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Damien Guichard writes:
>
> > Because it is claimed that reviewers are highly qualified people, some
> > potential volunteers may be intimidated. I was also at first. I am not a
> > part author and even less a highly qualified people (in LDraw issues I
> > mean). What Parts Tracker actually needs is not infaillible technicians but
> > just more reviewing work to be done. By different people, possibly with more
> > heterogeneous part interests and reviewing techniques.
>
> I wonder. . .would it be helpful, or simply more confusing, to introduce more
> "levels" of reviewers? Currently a part requires two votes from regular users
> plus one from an admin user (which is currently just Steve Bliss, yes?). I
> think things might move faster with better quality control and more involvement
> if there were three kinds of reviewers:
>
> Beginner: has basic knowledge of LDraw concepts, agrees to certify a part only
> after doing the various checks with various software as described in the FAQ
> under "What should I look for when I review a part?"
>
> Advanced: experienced LDraw user and author, agrees to certify only parts he or
> she owns (when possible); will look for more subtle problems.
>
> Admin: as before.
>
> Under this assembly-line scheme, lots of people could feel comfortable being
> "Beginner" reviewers, making sure the part meets minimal requirements (and
> doing more if they so wished). "Advanced" reviewers could then focus on parts
> that they already know "work", and could apply their skills to determining if
> the parts are "good". "Admin" reviewers can be reasonably satisfied that parts
> have been reviewed for compliance, correctness, and quality already, easing the
> amount of time that must be spent on the final review of each part. I think
> something like this could lighten the workload (per part) for reviewers, at the
> cost of some of the safety of redundancy.
>
> TWS Garrison
May be "beginner reviewers" is a name for people like you and me.
Then may be "advanced reviewers" is just a new name for acknowledged part
authors.
These acknowledged part authors just do their best by creating the LDraw
parts we love so much.
We can not expect they review each-other.
That would be enslaving talent in bureaucratic tasks.
Part authors can not inherit both excellence-obligation and responsability.
That would not be a fair load.
Just consider competence in PT and be realistic:
Excellence is mainly at author side.
While reviewer side is mainly driven by responsability.
Excellence is primarily an author duty.
Responsability is primarily a user duty.
If you are excellent just do authoring.
If you have little experience just do reviewing first.
There is no better competence allocation scheme.
Of course the 2 roles are not exclusive.
However experienced users can not use this argument to deny responsability.
When reviewing you have the impostor-complex.
When authoring you have maximum pressure!
Some good-sense hints for authoring beginners:
* do not consider holding as a sanction (it is not)
* do not consider certification as a reward (it is not)
* consider certification as a proccess (submission is just a first step)
* consider reviewing and beeing reviewed as gratification (yes it is)
* do not submit if you are sure your part has to be certified (this is
unnecessary exposure to disappointment)
* start with simple geometrical parts you can easily handle
* do not submit a mockup
Don't adhere to these rules and your submissions will soon turn into
ungrateful school exams.
Damien
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers
|
| (...) I wonder. . .would it be helpful, or simply more confusing, to introduce more "levels" of reviewers? Currently a part requires two votes from regular users plus one from an admin user (which is currently just Steve Bliss, yes?). I think things (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
26 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
