[Project_owners] AMO : Improving the Review/Editorial Process

Eric H. Jung eric.jung at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 17 15:04:00 PDT 2008

----- Original Message ----

> From: Robert Kaiser <KaiRo at KaiRo.at>

> 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.

FYI, currently *addons* are trusted, not authors. As Onno mentioned, and as you suggest, it would be nice if authors could be trusted instead of their individual addons, but this is not currently the way AMO works. I have 3+ addons on AMO but only one is trusted.



More information about the Project_owners mailing list