currently gathering experience in how projects work and how to create the workflow around them
Still a lot of handwork (Uploading, create issues)
Time consuming and eventually time blocker during the assessment
Structure
BOMs are usually in a very very different structure
Therefore individual solutions required for structuring the assembly groups!
Not any project uses version numbers
Questions
How to make sure that issues related to changed components are "notified"?
Current Procedure: Applicants and reviewers communicating in the issues
How to deal with changes that effect already reviewed components?
strictly viewed the component must at least be quickly re-evaluated
Current Procedure: Applicants and reviewers communicating in the issues
Should the REVIEW branch be a SNAPSHOT
can not be changed by applicants / reviewers
AND: Do we at all need a review branch?
Should applicants commit the changes on their own into the assessment repo?
Could make sense to reduce this action to CAB-admins
More control
But also more work!
Guide
Communicate the desired workflow with the projects applicant
Make sure the "rules" are clear
Application
Still a bit unclear WHO is uploading / committing WHAT and WHERE
Difficult to adjust product development to the review process
Questions
Who are the TARGETS of the designs? In other words - which knowledge can be assumed?
What are the exact requirements for the review? How to deal with unclarities? Unless they are unclear the discusscion might become endless...
Guide
Communicate your changes
Ideally apply 1 change per commit
Mark the relevant issues in your commit!!!
Review
A lot of questions are still open
to which depth the technology should be checked?
Complex technologies require detailed information for tolerances?
Communication could be more active
Guide
Ideas
Levels of Assessment
Eventually we will need different levels of assessments, to show if a technology is more DIY (low-tech, low demand for details) or or professional (complex, high demand for tolerances)
Organise meetings with reviewers and applicants for an exchange
