I have always used the "cc" field as a way of saying: "Here's a ticket you might be interested in and could possibly review." And I have never been bothered if that did not result in a review from that person.
And when I am cc'ed on a ticket I always welcome it as an *invitation* to review, without feeling it is an *obligation* to review. Maybe this practice is not universal, or is not getting the job done, but I have found it a nice compromise between Jason's push/pull analogy. And being listed as pre-emptively as a reviewer on many tickets, especially ones I am not interested in or capable of doing properly, would take away some of the enjoyment. It would remind of the referee requests I get from journals to review poorly-written research papers about topics I am no longer interested in. Rob On Feb 28, 3:16 pm, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > Incidentally, I think a ticket set to "needs review" that doesn't have > a specific *reviewer* chosen by the author of the ticket, should be > bumped back to "needs work". Perhaps the biggest reason we have 279 > tickets (right now) that need review is that in most cases people > don't do anything to get a specific person to review their ticket. If > they couldn't set their ticket to "needs review" without choosing a > reviewer, we would be in better shape. -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
