Andy Little wrote:
Three positive reviews is not sufficient in my opinion. However, the precedent has already be set, as other libraries have been approved on a similar limited number of reviews.
Obvious questions in response to this... How many reviews are sufficient? What proportion in favour/against acceptance is acceptable?
The judgement of the library's review manager is the final determinent. The criteria that he/she used to accept or reject the submission should be clearly stated in the review managers report after the review period is over. Tom Brinkman
"Tom Brinkman" <reportbase@gmail.com> wrote
Andy Little wrote:
Three positive reviews is not sufficient in my opinion. However, the precedent has already be set, as other libraries have been approved on a similar limited number of reviews.
Obvious questions in response to this... How many reviews are sufficient? What proportion in favour/against acceptance is acceptable?
The judgement of the library's review manager is the final determinent.
The criteria that he/she used to accept or reject the submission should be clearly stated in the review managers report after the review period is over.
Yes. In retrospect I could have done a lot better. I should not have allowed modifications to the library or the documentation during the review. My report was also severely lacking in detail. With benefit of experience, I shall try to do better next time. Andy Little
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 15:54:45 +0100 "Andy Little" <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
Yes. In retrospect I could have done a lot better. I should not have allowed modifications to the library or the documentation during the review. My report was also severely lacking in detail. With benefit of experience, I shall try to do better next time.
Thanks! With that said, we should also double your pay next time ;-)
| Andy Little wrote: | | > Three positive reviews is not sufficient in my opinion. However, | > the precedent has already be set, as other libraries have | been approved on a similar limited number of reviews. I think this low number is because people feel they MUST put quite a lot of work into a review. Provided reviewers state when they only glanced at the submission, I think that the sum of all these 'quickies' would be helpful, when considered in combination with a few 'in-depth' reviews. Even confirmation that the 'in-depth' review reflects a majority view would also be useful. It is up to the review manager to weigh the information from the various reviews. So I would also like to see a lot more shorter reviews. Paul Paul A Bristow Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830 +44 7714 330204 mailto: pbristow@hetp.u-net.com
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 05:18:38PM +0100, Paul A Bristow wrote:
| Andy Little wrote: | | > Three positive reviews is not sufficient in my opinion. However, | > the precedent has already be set, as other libraries have | been approved on a similar limited number of reviews.
I think this low number is because people feel they MUST put quite a lot of work into a review.
Provided reviewers state when they only glanced at the submission, I think that the sum of all these 'quickies' would be helpful, when considered in combination with a few 'in-depth' reviews.
That's good to know, as I might be able to contribute quickies. My time has been severely limited recently. jon
Paul A Bristow wrote:
Andy Little wrote:
Three positive reviews is not sufficient in my opinion. However, the precedent has already be set, as other libraries have been approved on a similar limited number of reviews.
I think this low number is because people feel they MUST put quite a lot of work into a review.
Provided reviewers state when they only glanced at the submission, I think that the sum of all these 'quickies' would be helpful, when considered in combination with a few 'in-depth' reviews.
I'm one of those people who feels I must put a lot of work into a review. For the FSM review I broke this policy and wrote a review even though I had only studied the documentation. My review was negative; it was basically a list of what I considered to be shortcomings of the library. I ended up getting into an unpleasant exchange with the library author, who repeatedly challenged me to suggest concrete changes to the design to fix the perceived problems. I had examined the library more thoroughly, my guess is that I would have been able to suggest improvements. I don't blame the library author in this case; it's only natural to ask for an alternate design when you are told that your design is flawed; however, I simply didn't have sufficient time to devote to the library. In the end, my "quicky" review wasn't quick at all, since I ended up writing a long sequence of messages. As a result, I don't plan to submit reviews in the future unless I have time to study the submissions thoroughly. Jonathan
participants (6)
-
Andy Little -
Jody Hagins -
Jonathan Turkanis -
Jonathan Wakely -
Paul A Bristow -
Tom Brinkman