Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Those two cases represent the extreme edges. In the middle are cases > where members may be commenting on aspects of the case, but which may > fall outside of areas of (self-acknowledged) expertise. Having a policy > that doesn't require the explicit +1 leaves to many things to be > subjective for no real merit. (If a member really believes a case is > ready, how hard is it to say "+1" in e-mail? If this is too hard, then > IMO the member should reevaluate his ability to commit to ARC in the > first place.) > > Further, if anytime I comment on a case its automatically going to be > assumed to mean +1, then I'm going to be a lot more hesitant to comment > on cases unless I'm prepared to either assert that the review is > complete, or derail the case. That means that what might sometimes > still be useful exchanges will not occur because I don't want to be > misjudged as having fully reviewed the case. > > I think an explicit +1 policy for *all* fast tracks is the best policy.
I don't think it's all that hard. The person closing the case (whether the owner at time-out or the ARC chair during the business survey) needs to make a fairly straightforward judgment call. If someone offered a comment on the case but explicitly said "I didn't read all of the case, but ...", then there's a good argument that the bar hasn't been crossed. If there's any other comment, then I'd say the writer has looked at it, and it's good to go. The original intent was to avoid having cases that _nobody_ ever looks at. Why get caught up in the formalism of requiring mechanical "+1" messages? Moreover, this isn't the only such call a case owner needs to make. He also needs to be sure that all of the conversation around the case has died down and that the final specification is recorded before closing it. Even if a case has a "+1", you can't reasonably close it if there's still productive conversation taking place. I don't think anyone who is unable to make that sort of call should be given a fast-track license. It seems like the minimum possible amount of due diligence as a sponsor -- making sure that a case you're closing really should be closed. -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W <carlsonj at workingcode.com>
