To hold or not to hold - preferably not
2012-01-03, 7:41 (This post was last modified: 2012-01-04, 20:48 by Tim Gould.)
2012-01-03, 7:41 (This post was last modified: 2012-01-04, 20:48 by Tim Gould.)
Having recently stuck my nose in the PT again after a long hiatus I've come, partially, to remember certain things about it that concern me a little. Most notably I've spotted examples of what I consider to be incorrect 'hold's on the PT.
From the PT Reviewew FAQ a 'hold' is for "It's getting there, but not yet. There are errors to be corrected before the part can be released. The author has to take care of the errors." Obviously there is some leeway in deciding what is wrong or right, but I've seen more than a few 'hold's that I think were simply imposing of the reviewers views on an iffy issue.
I'm writing this mostly to ask reviewers to give more consideration to whether a 'hold' is really appropriate or if a 'novote' might not be better. Especially if what you are demanding is in a grey area of standards. This isn't to criticise the reviewers or reviews, especially as there are times when I agree with the point but disagree with the 'hold'. Sometimes it's easy to be distracted by semantics and pedantism when you are so deep in something[1].
Remember the goal of the Parts Tracker is to produce releasable parts of high standard for LDraw. Not never released parts of a never-to-be-achieved perfect systemic standard.
Tim
[1] This is coming from a man who will spend days getting all the formatting to look just right in computational physics code while neglecting to do the coding for the intended job. I'm no innocent!
From the PT Reviewew FAQ a 'hold' is for "It's getting there, but not yet. There are errors to be corrected before the part can be released. The author has to take care of the errors." Obviously there is some leeway in deciding what is wrong or right, but I've seen more than a few 'hold's that I think were simply imposing of the reviewers views on an iffy issue.
I'm writing this mostly to ask reviewers to give more consideration to whether a 'hold' is really appropriate or if a 'novote' might not be better. Especially if what you are demanding is in a grey area of standards. This isn't to criticise the reviewers or reviews, especially as there are times when I agree with the point but disagree with the 'hold'. Sometimes it's easy to be distracted by semantics and pedantism when you are so deep in something[1].
Remember the goal of the Parts Tracker is to produce releasable parts of high standard for LDraw. Not never released parts of a never-to-be-achieved perfect systemic standard.
Tim
[1] This is coming from a man who will spend days getting all the formatting to look just right in computational physics code while neglecting to do the coding for the intended job. I'm no innocent!