PS ...<br><br>If the idea of having a few volunteers be separated out to address a specific queue or what not is going to be looked at I would much prefer they work from a more proper FIFO list simply taking the oldest open ticket (one at a time) and GTD.<br>
<br><br clear="all">Cais.<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Edward Caissie <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:edward.caissie@gmail.com">edward.caissie@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
The essential premises of the Trac review priority is still one of FIFO (First-In First-Out).<br>The ideas behind the Priority queues was to facilitate quicker reviewers of known themes; and to help identify themes for reviewers so they are aware of any history that may be involved.<br>
<br>For example a custom query such as this one: <a href="http://themes.trac.wordpress.org/query?owner=&status=new&col=id&col=summary&col=status&col=type&col=priority&col=time&col=changetime&order=time" target="_blank">http://themes.trac.wordpress.org/query?owner=&status=new&col=id&col=summary&col=status&col=type&col=priority&col=time&col=changetime&order=time</a> shows a list of all open tickets (168 at the moment) where the one at the top should be the prime priority theme. The Priority queues were introduced to quickly pick out those themes (ideally previously approved in their last submission) to pick the "low hanging fruit".<br>
<br><br clear="all">Cais.<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Chandra Maharzan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:maharzan@gmail.com" target="_blank">maharzan@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
This would be great. I haven't seen queue 2, 3 moving at all for a long time. :)<br>
<br>
2012/1/26 <a href="http://futeng.org" target="_blank">futeng.org</a> <<a href="mailto:bbq@futeng.org" target="_blank">bbq@futeng.org</a>>:<br>
<div><div>> I hope so!<br>
><br>
><br>
> ------------------ Original ------------------<br>
> From: "Kirk Wight";<br>
> Date: 2012年1月26日(星期四) 晚上10:25<br>
> To: "theme-reviewers";<br>
> Subject: [theme-reviewers] splitting reviewers between queues<br>
><br>
> Hello reviewers,<br>
><br>
> I'm wondering if we should consider splitting reviewers between some<br>
> different queues, just to keep all queues moving.<br>
><br>
> I haven't seen queue 1 empty yet myself since the "getting back on track"<br>
> changes in December. I've also noticed that queue 1 can get a bit dominated<br>
> if submitters are quite active (no fault of their own - obviously we need to<br>
> keep encouraging regular updates to themes).<br>
><br>
> Maybe, for now, we could assign a reviewer to each of queues 2, 3 and 4, and<br>
> everyone else plugs away as always?<br>
><br>
</div></div>> _______________________________________________<br>
> theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org" target="_blank">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
><br>
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
cmans<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org" target="_blank">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>