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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Brian King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 >> [email protected] >> 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 > [email protected] > https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners > > _______________________________________________ Project_owners mailing list [email protected] https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
