The "have to go through the reviewing process" bit is a purely artificial requirement. It exists because some people are afraid that subverting a very complicated, very slow review process will somehow damage the quality of the part library. In individual instances, I'm sure the concern is well-founded. But on the whole, I feel the policy has demonstrably had the exact opposite effect. Simple problems which could have been algorithmically corrected remain enshrined (bow-tie quads, for example). Authors create parts, then don't even bother submitting them to the Part Tracker because it's a waste of their time. Contributors fade away. New ideas are almost invariably dead on arrival.
I would like to see, at the very least, an expansion of admin power on the part tracker and a recognition that some changes can be made in bulk without individual review of every single line.
Reflexively shooting down an idea like this is just unhealthy. We should be fixing this administrative problem before talking about software client workarounds.
Allen
I would like to see, at the very least, an expansion of admin power on the part tracker and a recognition that some changes can be made in bulk without individual review of every single line.
Reflexively shooting down an idea like this is just unhealthy. We should be fixing this administrative problem before talking about software client workarounds.
Allen