Clarify reviews on weeks with one day of reading

[Others]

I've rewritten the section about when you need to do each kind of review, to ensure fairness on weeks where there is only one day of reading. The language may need further cleanup.

Basically a different approach to the problem tackled #34

Open questions: 1) Is it enough to simply balance the number of Phase 2 and Phase 3 reviews? That would allow people to do two Phase 2 or two Phase 3 reviews in some weeks, as long as it balances out 2) Should being a discussion leader get you out of readings for that week? Or should it get you out of work the week before, since that's when you're probably making the presentation

[pcodes]

Regarding point 2 (since I am currently experiencing this), I think it makes more sense to have a break from other papers the week before. It seems to me like the process of putting the presentation together is more effort than rehearsing it, so having 7 days of no other work but rehearsal seems unnecessary. On the other hand, if I only had to read one paper and make my presentation, instead of reading my paper, making a presentation, writing a critical review, and then also a comprehension review, the workload across weeks would be more consistent and better distributed.

If the idea behind having a week off is to allow for complete focus on rehearsing the presentation, then there might be a case for having 2 weeks off to allow that. At a minimum, however, I think the week prior should be the free pass.

This might be better suited as a follow-up PR, but I wanted to throw this in here since @Others mentions it in his description and this PR is already changing the relevant section.

[gparmer]

I like this wording, and will accept this PR.

I'd like to see more input from the class. I can bring it up in the first minutes of class on Thursday.

Questions about the steps after this PR.

Is it enough to simply balance the number of Phase 2 and Phase 3 reviews? That would allow people to do two Phase 2 or two Phase 3 reviews in some weeks, as long as it balances out

I don't like this. I want to make sure that each presenter is "backed up" by at least 5 critical reviews to help them out. Simply balancing over the entire semester the # of critical vs. comprehension can lead to some papers having zero critical which isn't great for that presenter.

Should being a discussion leader get you out of readings for that week? Or should it get you out of work the week before, since that's when you're probably making the presentation

I'm fine with this. Makes sense. Does that mean that someone will have to do a review of the other paper on the day they are presenting? Seems like.

[gparmer]

(Sorry, didn't mean to close)

[gparmer]

I should also mention: The current wording makes it sound like a review is required for Phase 1 readings. They are not. The core problem might be in the original wording, and not just in yours. I want to be clear that everyone should do a Phase 1 read of each paper, but you only provide a review on the issue if you're doing Phase 2 and 3.

[bushidocodes]

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate location for the verbiage, but I think we're still missing something to the effect of "To provide makeup time, presenters are excused from reviews on the day they present, and the immediately preceding scheduled Paper Discussion day. Students that present once would do seven comprehension reviews and seven critical reviews. Grad students that present twice would do six comprehension reviews and six reviews."

[Others]

@bushidocodes I think that's blocked on open question 2 I think. Let's fix that in a separate PR :)

[Others]

@gparmer cleaned up write-up spec

[gparmer]

Thanks all!