Subject:
|
Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:14:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5524 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Thomas Garrison wrote:
> > 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".
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 way to search the parts you tagged WILL review and it's your own to-do
list. Give a way to search the parts someone else tagged WILL review and it's a
nag list.
If enough people vote will review, the part has enough reviewers to get done. If
no one does, and no one reviews it, maybe a campaign to provide more info is
appropriate.
The above is all my guessing. Not sure it's a good idea or not, but something to
mull over?
>
> > 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.
Agree.
> However, it really should allow the author to revisit the
> part, and change the setting. :/
Only by uploading a revised part maybe?
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
| Going back a ways for this one... (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 3-Nov-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
|
|
|
|
