Parts on hold on PT


Parts on hold on PT
#1
We have currently 372 parts on hold on the PT. This value is now nearly for half a year constant.
I would like to see that number decreasing Smile

Everybody is invited to help to minimize that number !

Edit:
I just tried to identify those file, but sadly the question "Which files are on hold" are not answered by any function I tried on the PT.
Reply
Re: Parts on hold on PT
#2
Michael Heidemann Wrote:I just tried to identify those file, but sadly the question "Which files are on hold" are not answered by any function I tried on the PT.
Just scroll down to the end of parts list...
Reply
Re: Parts on hold on PT
#3
Oh. Thanks. I missed that Smile
Reply
Re: Parts on hold on PT
#4
You can use this URL
Chris (LDraw Parts Library Admin)
Reply
Re: Parts on hold on PT
#17
Chris, I would love to see that link added to the tools list at
http://www.ldraw.org/library/tracker/tools/
Reply
Re: Parts on hold on PT
#5
I'll try to explain my point of view to this problem.
I don't think that there are to many Hold-votes. I think that there are not enough active reviewers.

As an active author/reviewer it allways amazes me every time a new part, or a review, is met by total silence. I personally try to respond to any new file, or review, within a week. And when I review a part I expect the author to respond.
Why was the file uploaded, if you're not interested in the review?
Why should I spend my time reviewing a file, if the author isn't interested in my opinion?
I sometimes hesitate from voting, knowing that my Hold-vote is only going to add to my personal workload.

Why is the stipulated waiting period as long as three month?
I think that it is to long. One month is enough. If the author hasn't responded to a Hold-vote sooner, it should be OK for anyone to act on it. A longer period leads to that it gets forgotten. The Part Tracker seem to be full of forgotten files.

What is the point of voicing your opinion as a novote?
I sometimes see that obvious errors are pointed out that way, only leading to a limbo where nothing happens. No one is allowed to do anything until someone votes Hold, and then waits for another three month. A total waste of time (and a review).

This is my opinion/suggestion.
A file based on LDD data is free for anyone to edit (as before).
A new/updated file should be reviewed within a fourtnight.
A Hold-voted file should be corrected within a fourtnight.
A Hold-voted file is free to edit if the author don't respond within a month.
A novoted file is free to edit if it is left unattended for two month.

Anyone agree/against?
Reply
Re: Parts on hold on PT
#6
I basically agree with you... at least for my files! (I have so many files on PT that I sometimes miss a review, or is busy at the moment, then forget...).
Reply
Re: Parts on hold on PT
#7
Well,
I totally agree with the LDD based files.
I don't agree with "should be reviewed within a fourtnight", because I don't like to get stressed as a reviewer. And for the moment we are around 10 more or less active reviewers. (Sometimes I can read only 5 different names in the PT in a week). Of course it would be nice to get a review within 14 days but it is also OK, if it would be 30 days. At the moment I feel that the PT is running very well and it is possible to get a review within 14 days. If we really want such a time restriction for the review, than there should be a webpage, where we can see only new submitted files by date.
To workover a part after a hold-vote 14 days should be really enough. I agree in this point.
A Hold-voted file is free to edit if the author don't respond within a month. Why 30 days here? I would like 14 days as well.
A novoted file is free to edit if it is left unattended for two month. This is also OK with me.

Just my 2 cents.

/Max
Reply
Re: Parts on hold on PT
#8
I like your point of view Smile

But...
please keep in mind that everybody that is working on this does this in his free time (beneth work and family).

I think that the current rules give us enough room to improve files also if the author has left his files alone (i also have done that for several parts, that i came across now Smile )
The reason for that can be a wide range of reasons therefore I do not mention that many reasons now.

It is always a good practise to respond to submit or hold or novote within a short time. But not in any case possible. If there are only two guys in summary that do this job, the files should get out quickly.

But there are for several reasons hold files that needs more than just a hold or novote. These files needs to be discussed. And sometimes nobody really cares about that files and so they sit on the PT for years.

This is my second approach to minimize the hold files. If you have a look at the history bar you will see my first attempt Smile

From time to time the old things needs a deeper look, like in reality Smile
Reply
Re: Parts on hold on PT
#11
Magnus Forsberg Wrote:Why is the stipulated waiting period as long as three month?
I think that it is to long. One month is enough. If the author hasn't responded to a Hold-vote sooner, it should be OK for anyone to act on it. A longer period leads to that it gets forgotten. The Part Tracker seem to be full of forgotten files.

I'd go further. I'd say any part should be considered open for free editing within a month, regardless of status.

If any of those held parts are mine, they're open for editing from the moment I submit. I've made that clear many times.

Tim
Reply
Proposal Re: Parts on hold on PT
#12
Perhaps we need something like this:
Quote:In order to facilitate the speedy addition of parts to the official database, any part submitted to the part tracker shall be considered for open editing+ after [one calendar month] inaction* after any review. If a Part Author does not wish others to edit their submitted part, they should make a statement to that effect upon submission of the part. In such a case the part will only be considered open for editing after three calendar months inaction after a hold review, as before.

+ Open editing means that any Part Author can edit and resubmit the part.
* Inaction is defined as having no response by the original Part Author to a review.

The period [one month] can be changed. These new rules simply reverse the old process where the author had to specify that the part was open for editing. Anyone who wishes to follow the old system can simply state as such.

Time suggestions:

Allen Smith: 0 delay
Tim Gould: 1 fortnight
Magnus Forsberg: one month
Max Martin Richter: 1 fortnight
Reply
Re: Proposal Re: Parts on hold on PT
#13
That is a fair and maybe more practical way of working. I like your suggestion.
Reply
Re: Proposal Re: Parts on hold on PT
#14
I feel any policy change to reduce the embargo time would be most beneficial.

Personally, I think the ideal hold time is zero. After all, this is how software development usually works. Most version control systems accept changes at any time. If someone else commits a change to a file you are working on, the version control system automatically merges in the other person's changes before you commit.
Reply
Re: Proposal Re: Parts on hold on PT
#15
Allen Smith Wrote:I feel any policy change to reduce the embargo time would be most beneficial.

Personally, I think the ideal hold time is zero. After all, this is how software development usually works. Most version control systems accept changes at any time. If someone else commits a change to a file you are working on, the version control system automatically merges in the other person's changes before you commit.

From my perspective I'd be happy with zero delay. And when I remember to do it I state as such. But I can understand someone feeling some level of ownership over a really complex part (as I recall the was a genuine issue when we introduced the previous change opening the parts up after three months). That's why I tried to keep the proposal flexible enough to allow for people to 'control' their own submissions when they feel the need.

Tim
Reply
Re: Proposal Re: Parts on hold on PT
#16
But we do not have a version control system in our library. So we need to do all by hand.
As an author of a part normally I like to finish the whole part. At some stage I think it is ok to upload to the pt. Then the first reviewer find a mistake and vote hold/nocertify. The author should have the possibility to change the part himself. So one month will be fine for me. Most (if not all) do have a job and a family. They need to do one step after the other and they can not immediately after any vote respond or update the part. If I did not stated the file to be free for all to update I would be disappointed if someone else put his hands on my code. I think that also some other author feel like that. And because we do this hobby all in our free time (we can do a lot of other things) we should keep the part authors happy.

Just my 5 dollar Smile
Reply
Re: Parts on hold on PT
#9
I think we have done a good job today. Smile
Number of hold files are now 322. So we could separate 50 files. If we could keep this speed we have no files on hold within one week (just kidding) Wink

Thanks so far to all helping hands. Keep on doing.
Reply
Re: Parts on hold on PT
#10
I agree with Magnus Forsberg. I some times upload file, than I have no time, and lost it from my view. So I always glad if someone fix parts i upload. Mostly i upload parts, I use for renders.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)