Parts certification process - Printable Version +- LDraw.org Discussion Forums (https://forums.ldraw.org) +-- Forum: Models and Parts (https://forums.ldraw.org/forum-18.html) +--- Forum: Parts Authoring (https://forums.ldraw.org/forum-19.html) +--- Thread: Parts certification process (/thread-302.html)

Parts certification process - Willy Tschager - 2011-08-05 Please read: http://forums.ldraw.org/showthread.php?tid=176&pid=176#pid176 This rises two questions: * Shall there be a list of priorities to what gets released? * Has the certification process to be streamlined? (I guess this discussion is a old as the library itself). Please read also: http://www.ldraw.org/Article512.html http://www.ldraw.org/Article398.html (If the part is good enough for public use, but has some deficiencies that need to be addressed, the text " (needs work)" (without the quotation marks) can be added to the end of the description. Please note that the full description including " (needs work)" is limited to 64 characters, so this decreases the usable portion of the description to 51 characters. If the description includes " (needs work)", a comment must be added to the file immediately following the official header describing the work that needs to be done.) http://news.lugnet.com/announce/?n=3442 w. Re: Parts certification process - Orion Pobursky - 2011-08-05 As a "first time quality" type person, I'm a proponent of the current exacting process that is in place. Also, as a frequent rendered of models, I want high quality renders of every part in the library. Since my LPOV project nevr caught on, the only way to ensure high quality is to enforce high quality parts. Therefore I would rather release less part helds to a higher standard than more parts held to a lower standard. I'm also afraid that once a low quality version is released, no one will gp back and improve it. This will lead to a library that's mostly low quality parts which to me is unacceptable. Re: Parts certification process - Chris Dee - 2011-08-18 Regarding release priorities, I'm willing to be lobbied, and will respond to that. However, I'll usually deal first with the files that have less contentious comments, no issues of naming semantics and shorter dependency chains. More attention by reviewers to shared subparts at the ends of these chains would certainly help. I would not want to streamline the certification process any further as this would risk a reduction in quality and more thing to fix later. For regular parts, three independent reviewers is necessary in my opinion. The only area where a reduced number of reviewers might be appropriate is for Physical_Colour parts. For these one vote (maybe even self-cert) + admin might be sufficient, as all that needs checking is the image/colour against an instruction reference. Re: Parts certification process - Willy Tschager - 2011-08-19 I think the "Needs work" leaves enough room for mock-ups and the like. As far as the list of priorities I'm in sync with Steffen: http://forums.ldraw.org/showthread.php?tid=338&pid=338#pid338 I'm fine with a wishlist but no priority list. As it looks like the majority of the SteerCo is in favor for quality and no rules. Shall we vote on this or is a general statement that sums up the different aspects sufficient? w. Re: Parts certification process - Willy Tschager - 2011-09-01 Any ideas how a wishlist with people leaving votes could be accomplished? Would a post for every single part with the parts number and name in the title, a thumbnail + number + name in the post be enough? While a progressive numbering in the replies vould work as vote? I'll add an example. w. 48414c00 - Animal Hippogriff Body (Complete Assembly) - Willy Tschager - 2011-09-01 48414c00 - Animal Hippogriff Body (Complete Assembly) http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/48414c00 +1 - Willy Tschager - 2011-09-01 Yeah, author it +2 - Willy Tschager - 2011-09-01 vote +3 - Willy Tschager - 2011-09-01 Add me. Re: Parts certification process - Orion Pobursky - 2011-09-02 Sound good to me for a short term fix. Long term we should probably have some sort of web interface.