Contribution to Extras (an update)

[Jeff Spaleta]

On 4/17/06, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs at math.uh.edu> wrote:
> Would you really want to?

Me? probably not... but I'm trying to make sure the context of the
additional guidelines is put in the proper perspective for the vocal
opponents and those reading along.  I personally have no problem with 
special interest groups applying additional "shoulds" which are well
reasoned when choosing to spend their volunteer time to do reviews as
long as there is a clear good faith effort to work with the package
submitter to quickly work through the additional suggestions.

But the problem will come if the submitter doesn't agree with the
additional requirements above and beyond the established general
extras guidelines. I don't want reviews lingering in the FE-REVIEW
state if non essential sig-only suggestions are the only outstanding
issues which can't be agreed on. It should be made clear that in that
case the game SIG members should put the review request back into the
FE-NEW state so a non-sig member can then take the review assignment
as time allows.  I don't think this is likely, but in those
oh-so-special cases when a submitter has a bee in the bonnet of a
particular game sig "suggestions" I'd rather the game SIG members bow
out  of the review process quickly instead of waging a pitched battle
in the review bugzilla.

> But hey, if you don't agree with the reviewer, I suppose you can
> always ask for another one.  I'm sure you'll get one eventually.

I garuntee you that at some point there will be honest disagreement
between a submitter who finds the additional game specific
"suggestions" burdensome, and I just want everyone to be clear as to
the non-binding nature of the additional well-reasoned suggestions the
game sig has.

-jef