[Project_owners] AMO : Improving the Review/Editorial Process

S Waters sjwaters at gmail.com
Thu Jul 17 14:37:51 PDT 2008


Sorry to interject with a slightly OT question, but is it documented
anywhere how many reviews are "enough" reviews for an extension to be
considered for pushing public?

I recently read that AMO Reviewing Guide wiki article (http://wiki
.mozilla.org/Update:Editors/ReviewingGuide#Reviewing_Add-ons) and there is
no definite number listed, just a mention that there should be "a sufficient
number of AMO comments". Quality of the reviews was also not touched on, but
I imagine it plays a part?

Thanks for any info you can provide! My extension has recently shown up on
some Tools for Writers type lists, and they invariably link to the sandboxed
AMO page, not the publicly downloadable version on mozdev (argh). If the AMO
page continues to be more visible, then I guess I should make more of an
effort to get it pushed public.

--Sam

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:49 PM, John Woods <johnrw at gmail.com> wrote:

> Then get rid of the sandbox. It doesn't work For Everbody.
> As the document offered by fligtar shows... you have enough reviewers.
> It has already proven that it does not work for EVERYBODY.
>
> Pushing them public after a certain period of time does NOT Completely
> remove the point of sandbox. How long do you think amo is entitled to
> prevent
> distribution of a distributable extension? Forever?
>
> What do you think is reasonable?
>
> It is clear amo has bitten off more than it can handle.
>
> 2 weeks gives amo enough time to locate "bad" nefarious extensions and
> prevent it from going to the masses. As I said earlier... amo can publish
> a list of "going public soon, so you better find time to review these!"
> daily/weekly whatever. A list like that would then enable some tracking
> of reviewer performance issues which is non existant, and workload.
>
> Work with what you have, or scrap it.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:53 PM, John Marshall <johnm555 at gmail.com> 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.
> >
> > 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
> >> mine
> >> was submitted "for Editor Review" and it staying in that state
> >> indefinitely.
> >>
> >> Like I said earlier... that website should have a fixed period of time
> to
> >> Review
> >> and if no action is taken in that period of time... the extension
> >> submission
> >> 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
> >> discuss.
> >>
> >> They do not have the right to just leave things people have put real
> work
> >> into... in http://purgatory.addons.mozilla.org
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >> 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
> >> >> be
> >> >> a banging of heads to come up with ways to improve things. This is
> one
> >> >> of
> >> >> 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 the
> >> >> summit. I might also blog about it. Even if some of the ideas are
> >> >> followed
> >> >> 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.
> >> >> The
> >> >> exception might be to clarify a broken link or cite a bug. You can
> open
> >> >> a
> >> >> new thread if you like to start a discussion on a particular feature.
> >> >> Let's
> >> >> 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
> >> > afraid
> >> > 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
> >> > (now
> >> > 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
> >> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20080717/c33e8b1c/attachment.html>


More information about the Project_owners mailing list