Hi, I am attaching the updated Excel sheets with the review assignments. Each reviewer should grade his/her assigned items using the following categories: * Accept/reject - whether you think that the item should eventually be implemented or not (if you disagree with it). Reject does not mean that the item should not be addressed in this PAR, but that you disagree with it completely. * Importance - must/high/nice/low. The items you want to reject do not necessarily have low importance. It might be important to resolve them as "no change required" or "won't fix" * Resolution effort in days * Item classification: should item classification be changed (e.g., errata become a clarification, etc.). Here the correct type should be specified (e.g., Errata, Enhancement, etc.) * Has to be addressed in this PAR - yes/no - the bottom line resolution This estimation is due for 10-Jan-2016, 11:59 pm PST. Notes: * Partitioning into Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 is absolutely arbitrary and does not reflect either reviewer seniority or responsibility. * Each item has been assigned to two people * The following criteria have been taken into account for assignment a reviewer: o Volunteers for a given item o Item reporters or owners o Different affiliation of reviewers * The reviewers are expected to review at least their own items * Any person may review any additional item from the spreadsheets should he/she wish so. The additional review will have the same weight as the assigned reviews.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 21 2015 - 09:07:50 PST