--On Saturday, September 25, 2004 7:17 AM -1000 Takuya Yamashita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
you might decide to not do the review meeting if there are no critical or major issues uncovered during preparation. You might decide to delay the group meeting if preparation time was not sufficient.
This may or may not be good because as you see, almost reviewers use the default severity (i.e. in our case, unset or normal) so that we can not see there exist really critical or major issues. Even though we can force them to chose one of them, it would be hard to determine that review should be held or not because the magnitude of severity that each reviewer thought might be different from that of the other reviewers think in the team phase.
As soon as it really makes a difference regarding what severity level is set, people will start to take it more seriously. If we implement a pre-meeting phase in which we review the issues and decide whether to hold the meeting or not based (in part) upon severity levels, then I expect people will start to set them. (Or else, the review leader will set it themselves.)
Of course, that might mean that people set the severity level artificially low (or high) in order to prevent the meeting from occurring (or force it to occur)! But I think that's actually a good thing: people are in a sense 'voting' about what the most efficient use of their time is.
Cheers, Philip
