[Project_owners] AMO : Improving the Review/Editorial Process

Myk Melez myk at mozilla.org
Thu Jul 17 13:19:51 PDT 2008

John Marshall wrote:
> 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 through quickly.
Having more reviewers is only a better solution if it's possible and 
means more extensions get reviewed.  And given that folks have been 
pining for more reviewers for years, I don't think it's possible, at 
least not under the current system, in which there is little incentive 
and significant disincentive to review.

And I'm not sure it even would even mean more extensions would get 
reviewed.  Reviewers focus their attention on the extensions that 
interest them.  And that bias, which is perfectly reasonable (it is 
"scratching one's own itch" in true open source fashion), means that 
extensions with a limited audience (or even a large one that doesn't 
happen to include the kinds of people who self-select to be reviewers) 
would get less review even from a larger body of reviewers.

I don't agree with John Woods that we should auto-publicize extensions 
that languish in the sandbox, but I do think we should recognize that 
review, as currently constituted, does not accomplish the goal of 
expediently publicizing good extensions (nor, for that matter, filtering 
bad ones), and AMO should be looking for ways to accomplish that goal 
outside of the current review system.


More information about the Project_owners mailing list