[Project_owners] AMO : Improving the Review/Editorial Process
johnm555 at gmail.com
Thu Jul 17 10:53:19 PDT 2008
Pushing them public after a certain period of time without review would
completely defeat the point of the sandbox and review process. A better
solution is just to have more reviewers. I don't know what you mean by
favorite extensions, but popular extensions are (almost) always pushed
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:51 AM, John Woods <johnrw at gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like to hear their arguments for keeping extensions in the sandbox
> indefinitely... ie no guaranteed, fixed time after an extension such as
> was submitted "for Editor Review" and it staying in that state
> Like I said earlier... that website should have a fixed period of time to
> and if no action is taken in that period of time... the extension
> just goes public, except restricted ones like porn search stuff that never
> make public and aren't intended to be. A timeout.
> That allows everything else to stay the same... favorite extensions can be
> pushed through faster... but everyone else can fire and forget... without
> feeling the need to go on irc and ask questions about it nobody there will
> They do not have the right to just leave things people have put real work
> into... in http://purgatory.addons.mozilla.org
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Onno Ekker <o.e.ekker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Brian King <brian at mozdev.org> wrote:
> >> There has been a lot of talk about this in recent threads, so I have a
> >> proposal.
> >> The upcoming Firefox Summit has a few AMO talks on the schedule:
> >> http://wiki.mozilla.org/Summit2008/Sessions/Schedule
> >> One of them is titled just AMO: Editorial Process, which I believe will
> >> a banging of heads to come up with ways to improve things. This is one
> >> the high priorities at AMO.
> >> So what I would like you to do is reply to this post with your ideas on
> >> how to improve the process. I will then compile a list and present it at
> >> summit. I might also blog about it. Even if some of the ideas are
> >> through on, that would be a step in the right direction.
> >> Put your ideas into 3 separate categories:
> >> 1) General : What the pain points are for you, and a proposal on how to
> >> fix/improve. Let's focus on the review process, but site bugs can be
> >> included.
> >> 2) Feature Requests : Things you would like to see (or removed) on the
> >> site.
> >> 3) Mozdev ties : Ideas on how Mozdev could integrate with AMO.
> >> Guidelines:
> >> - Be constructive!
> >> - Keep each entry short. One liners where possible.
> >> - Cite bugs if they exist.
> >> - Do not follow-up on any ideas proposed, especially to knock it down.
> >> exception might be to clarify a broken link or cite a bug. You can open
> >> new thread if you like to start a discussion on a particular feature.
> >> work on the assumption that all ideas are good ideas for now.
> >> Thanks,
> >> - Brian
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Project_owners mailing list
> >> Project_owners at mozdev.org
> >> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
> > 1) General:
> > - AMO (and the rest of mozilla) is too much focused on Firefox. I'm
> > this won't get any better with Thunderbird going to mozillamessaging.com
> > (bugs 308193, 376350, 424933, 431707)
> > 2) Feature Requests:
> > - Make the pending queue publicly accessible, or show stats about depth,
> > average time, etc... (bug 427104)
> > - Add documentation about Trusted extensions. What are they? How does an
> > extension become trusted?
> > 3) Mozdev ties:
> > - Not specific for review process, but MDC should link to mozdev page
> > it links to project owners list) (see also bug 418179)
> > HTH
> > Onno
> > _______________________________________________
> > Project_owners mailing list
> > Project_owners at mozdev.org
> > https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
> Project_owners mailing list
> Project_owners at mozdev.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Project_owners