Mark A. Carlson wrote:
> It's pretty obvious from the thread on *this* case that there was
> significant
> review.
>
> Are you asserting that it would still need a +1?
>
> Then you are changing the definition of that we put in place when we
> started this practice.
My understanding was that we needed a +1, in all cases. But its
possible that my understanding is wrong. In any case, it should not be
much effort for the member(s) that participated in the review to say
"+1", and it disambiguates whether the member(s) really felt something
was properly reviewed.
>
> You are right that a simple comment from a non-member would not suffice
> for review.
Member or non-member, I think a simple comment, or even a detailed
discussion, doesn't necessarily mean that the case has converged.
I think +1 disambiguates this, and I'd recommend that if it isn't
officially the policy now, then it should be.
-- Garrett
>
> -- mark
>
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>> Mark A. Carlson wrote:
>>> a +1 is not a vote. It's original purpose was to indicate that
>>> *in the absence of any visible review* - someone had reviewed
>>> it and was OK with the case. Prior to this, cases were slipping
>>> through approved without such an indication.
>>>
>>> Unless the case mail file is empty (save for the project proposal)
>>> you don't need a +1 to close the case.
>>
>> Huh?!? While the purpose of the +1 is to indicate that review
>> occurred, I've interpreted that it is still necessary because it
>> indicates that the review occurred *and* the reviewer is satisfied
>> with the results.
>>
>> I don't think its a good idea to let cases get approved just because
>> someone sends a comment about the case (which might or might not
>> indicate a real review occurred.)
>>
>> - Garrett
>
