What requires a HOLD vote on the Parts Tracker


RE: What requires a HOLD vote on the Parts Tracker
#19
Just to give my point of view: as long as the reviewer and the author can discussed about a controvertial « hold » vote, I see no reason not to be strict.

As for me, anything related to part structure, anthoring rules or anything clearly defined in the standards should be holded, and the author must correct it.
Then, when it comes to pattern, complex surfaces geometry or anything that can get different interpretation, a hold vote should be clearly justified and the reviewer should be openned to discussed it, taking into account the author’s aguments. As for me, the tracker is already working that way.



Talking about my part’s reviews: I can’t complain because I try to correct holded parts asap and I never felt « hold abuse » from the reviewers (who I thank a lot btw).

Less « hold » is not what we need to get certified parts faster. What we need is an army of reviewer/authors to get the tracker to zero pending parts. If I would be an active reviewer, I would be kinda feared of this huge amount of parts waiting to be certified, and I wouldn’t know where to start. Cleaning the tracker would be a good start I guess, but that’s not an easy job.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Messages In This Thread
RE: What requires a HOLD vote on the Parts Tracker - by Damien Roux - 2017-12-13, 0:58

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)