[Project_owners] AMO : Improving the Review/Editorial Process

Robert Kaiser KaiRo at KaiRo.at
Thu Jul 17 13:44:53 PDT 2008


> 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.

I fully agree here. Maybe we can be more aggressive on making a number 
of developers "trusted", meaning they can circumvent the sandbox, if 
they get enough reviews that are positive enough or have provided 
well-reviewed add-ons for a certain time, kept track with current 
releases of the respective products, etc.
This might reduce the number of add-ons that even need review while 
still keeping a level of security and trust on AMO.
We should not play lightheartedly with trust, but I think there are 
certain criteria we can derive such trust from, and a huge number of the 
regulars in here for example would surely be trustworthy enough to get 
their stuff public without peer review.
We probably should concentrate the sandbox and reviews more on those in 
the add-ons community that are not that experienced and not that 
well-known instead of burdening those people with it of which we 
actually know that they are trying to make the best and most trustworthy 
add-ons they are able to produce, and have shown that for quite some time.

Robert Kaiser

More information about the Project_owners mailing list