I think the problem William is trying to resolve is that there are lots of tickets marked as "need review" on trac, where nobody besides the author feels any responsibility for getting them reviewed. Perhaps the idea of using the CC field for this purpose is a good one: whenever you mark a ticket as "needs review," there must be at least one person in the CC field who knows about the ticket and may choose to be a reviewer. If someone else puts you on the CC list for a ticket, you can either volunteer to be a reviewer, comment that you're interested in seeing the progression of the ticket but don't want to review it, or remove yourself from the CC list. In either of the second two cases, the author should find more people to put into the CC field until someone volunteers to review the ticket.
With this system the onus is on the author to find someone to review the ticket (rather than just having it sit in trac forever as needs review), but potential reviewers are the ones to take the final step to volunteer as a reviewer, so there isn't the same coercive pressure. David On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:52, John Cremona <john.crem...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with Rob. I think it is completely unacceptable to list a > person as a reviewer unless they have previously volunteered, or > responded to an explicit request (which they might decline). The > analogy with refereeing papers for publication is apt. > > John > > On 29 February 2012 17:16, Rob Beezer <goo...@beezer.cotse.net> wrote: > > 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 > > -- > 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 > -- 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
