Subject:
|
Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Wed, 1 Oct 2003 11:18:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
317 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Thomas Garrison wrote:
> > I can think if a few things that might help throughput (I'm sure that most
> > of these have been discussed before):
> >
> > 1) Create a new review attribute "compared to physical part" (which could
> > apply to an admin or regular review), which certifies that the reviewer
> > has the part and has actually measured it, made sure that the pattern
> > matches reality, whatever. Then require that at least or two reviews have
> > this attribute for the part to be certified. This a) encourages people
> > who don't have the part to still go ahead and check for gaps, overlaps,
> > wrong BFC, etc., secure in the knowledge that their approval will not let
> > a technically proficient but *wrong* part in the library, and b)
> > encourages people who *do* have the part to review it (their reviews
> > become more valuable), and to not sweat the technical details if that
> > would mean fewer reviews (because there are others whose contribution *is*
> > to sweat the technical details).
>
> I like this, sort of. While I thinks it's a good idea, the overall effect would
> be to lower throughput since not everyone has an expansive LEGO collection.
> Isn't that part of the reason why some started using virtual
> LEGO in the first place?
If we require (by informal convention at least) authors to have the part they
author, I do think there's merit in requiring at least one (or two) reviewer(s)
to have the part they author as well. So I think this is a good restriction
although I could see having it be one instead of two.
As to the collection size, you don't have to have an expansive collection to
have interesting parts. Nor does having an expansive collection *ensure* you
have a particular part...
>
> > 2) Create new votes: "will review" and "will not review". (The "will not
> > review" could be for whatever undisclosed reason---wrote the part, don't
> > have the part, don't care about the part, author stole the reviewer's girl
> > in the seventh grade. . .) This would most obviously benefit the
> > admins---if one admin won't review a part, the other knows he must. It
> > would really help all reviewers prioritize their reviewing activities.
>
> Interesting.
>
> > Note that there is no reason to report names for these votes; a running
> > tally of "M Admins and N non-Admins have said they will review this part,
> > X Admins and Y non-Admins have said they will not review this part" (and
> > the ability to sort by these numbers) would suffice.
Actually I think this shouldn't be anonymous. At least not to reviewers.
> >
> > 3) Create a bit for every part on the Tracker, set at submission time:
> > (a) Feel free to make fixes if you find problems
> > (b) Please notify the author if you find problems
> > with (b) changing to (a) if a part has a hold vote stand for more than 30
> > days. This would provide a formal convention which would allow many
> > small problems to be quickly fixed, while also allowing authors to retain
> > control of their parts throughout the certification process, if desired.
> > It would also end the problem of orphan parts. (There are many orphans
> > that have been on the Tracker for a long time.)
>
> I like this idea a lot. 30 day may seem too short to some but I think it's just
> right.
I would prefer 60 days but otherwise I agree.
Bunch of good ideas here! Thanks for sharing them, Thomas!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
| (...) I like this, sort of. While I thinks it's a good idea, the overall effect would be to lower throughput since not everyone has an expansive LEGO collection. Isn't that part of the reason why some started using virtual LEGO in the first place? (...) (21 years ago, 1-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
