Subject:
|
Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:57:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
828 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, TWS Garrison wrote:
> I wonder. . .would it be helpful, or simply more confusing, to introduce more
> "levels" of reviewers?
Maybe. It would be nice to get an initial review of parts as soon as
possible after they're submitted. And there are occasionally some
(fairly) obvious defects that aren't caught until late in the game.
I might have recently posted about the following, sorry if this is a
repeat.
From the beginning of the work on the Part Tracker, I've thought having
specific tasks for reviews -- think of them as checkboxes on the
review-posting form. One reviewer can flag that she verified the part
number, and the part works in LEdit. Another reviewer can flag that he
double-checked the BFC encoding. And so on. Once all the checks have
been flagged by at least one person, the part can be released.
The big problem with this approach is that we have to delineate every
task for reviewing a part, or we'll still need a separate "performed
thorough review" checkbox.
Maybe the basic/beginner reviewers can use the checkboxes, and the
advanced reviewers have to do it the old-fashioned way?
> Currently a part requires two votes from regular users
> plus one from an admin user (which is currently just Steve Bliss, yes?).
BTW, having a single admin might become a problem, a bottleneck. We
might have more work to do than a single admin can handle. :)
> 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.
As a q'n'd alternate, would it help to have a "Report a problem with
this Part" link on every part-detail page, so anyone can submit defect
reports on any parts?
Steve
|
|
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 (...) (23 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
|
|
|
|
