Jody Hagins wrote:
As discussed in the past, I think the review period is way too short. I would much rather we have multiple reviews going on at the same time, with each one alloting about a month, rather than the 10 day period we now have. I think it would garner much more feedback, and the quality of the reviews would improve as well.
I agree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure it would work. The problem with volunteer projects is that we participate in our spare time. That means time-consuming tasks like reviews get pushed back until we have sufficient time spare to do the necessary research and evaluation. Typically, it keeps getting put off until there is a better time. Then you run into the deadline, and that focusses the mind. If you extend the review period to 1 month, I suspect you will still see the majority of activity in the last days, after an opening surge by the early adopters. What is needed is a way to get people on board and actively preparing for the review period in that month leading up to the formal review itself. Regular posting of the review queue should help, but we seem to have that now and still only got 3 reviews in the last round. I am wondering if something like the regression testing pages would help. Not specifically for testing, but some kind of always-available dynamic web page which reflects status of the review queue, and progress of each review. Some artefact outside the list to help focus the mind and gain attention. I was going to suggest perhaps a Wiki for each review. but I think that would take focus away from this list, and that is where discussion seems to work well. Anything that takes focus away from this list will probably have an adverse effect on review quality, not matter how well intended. I'm afraid I don't have any more realistic answers to offer. It doesn't help that I have been off-list and way overcommitted recently myself :?( AlisdairM