Subject:
|
Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Nov 2003 03:22:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
337 times
|
| |
|
|
Going back a ways for this one...
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Thomas Garrison wrote:
> 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 considered going a similar route when I constructed the PT: offer reviewers a
list of checkpoints that they should consider when posting a review. I
abandoned this thinking because the 'rules' for processing the checks were too
complicated. Should some checks be required, but not others? What if a new
'check' was created? How are existing reviews handled?
I figured it was more sensible to offer a comment box where people could say
what they looked at, or didn't look at.
A simpler, lower impact solution would be to add verbiage to the review-posting
form, giving guidelines as to what makes up a review.
> 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.
Hmm. I can see why "will not review" is good, but I'm not seeing the importance
of "will review".
> 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.)
That's a good idea. However, it really should allow the author to revisit the
part, and change the setting. :/
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
| (...) My guess: If someone votes "will review" it's like it's on their to-do list because they think they're a good candidate. Submitting a modified part should not clear WILL NOT and WILL review votes. Only a hold/certify should clear them Give a (...) (21 years ago, 3-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
| (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 30-Sep-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
