We should at least use the body with an explicite "accept" and "reject" in it. This can't be done by accident, while it can happen for sending a mail.
But why not at least explicite "accept"/"reject" in the subject or the body of a mail?
saves you a couple of seconds per email. the easier the job, the more people will do it.
more than errors, I'm concerned to people not moderating things thru.
I would like to see a little application, where a link in the mail points directly to the resource. The committer has to login and accept or reject the change. So conflict situations can also be much better handled and reverting changes should also be easier to be implemented.
I dislike this, it stops me from doing auditing offline.
Is offline/online still an issue?
It is for me. I want a system that works for me, does not force me to work for the system.
Furthermore we only talk about minutes if not seconds per day: the mails are sent, you can read offline and decide whether to accept or reject,, go online, click on the link in the mail, login, click "accept" or "reject", finished. Even on the wiki not more than ten pages change per day. We are many more committers.
suppose that I'm online and reading email.
your solution requires me to: move my hand on the mouse, click on the link [this opens the browser that will automatically fill the login page with my login/password], click login, approuve the change, go back to my email client.
my solution requires two keystrokes
your solution is easy enough, but I'm way more lazy than you can possibly imagine... I know me and I know that many fellow cocooners are as lazy as I am, this means that I will end up avoiding doing moderation, or forgetting altogether.
this will result in a few people doing the moderation task only, increasing by orders of magnitude the errorprone-ness of the system and decreasing fault-tollerance by reducing distribution of laber and redundancy.
I say we try my lazy ass solution first and then, in case we find problems with it, we change.
deal?
Man, you must really be lazy ;-) So, yes, let's try your solution first.
Joerg
