[theme-reviewers] Questions for Otto/Nacin

Chip Bennett chip at chipbennett.net
Fri Oct 8 19:23:36 UTC 2010

It wouldn't be *entirely* no different from the current Reviewers group - I
assume that Pross can work some SQL magic to generate reports of tickets
assigned by User Group? If so, then Report #7 becomes incredibly useful for
the Training workflow.

Otherwise, yes: we could add Trainees to the Reviewers group, and just
instruct them only to use "suggest-approval" and "suggest-not-approved"
resolutions for closing tickets.

Which causes me to ask another question: can we add Statuses, and assign
resolutions to a Status other than "Closed"?

If so, we could have a "Pending" Status, and have tickets resolved as
"suggest-approval" or "suggest-not-approved" change to "Pending" status,
rather than "Closed".

(I think, though, that I remember Otto saying that adding Statuses was much
more difficult than adding Resolutions.)


On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com>wrote:

> Now that I see "authenticated" users really cannot be much use to new Theme
> Reviews I better understand the idea you are putting forward, but unless we
> can restrict resolution options by group then what you are suggesting would
> be no different from the "reviewers" group that already exists ... at least
> that is how I am reading the permission sets available on the Trac wiki
> here: http://trac.edgewall.org/wiki/TracPermissions
> There may be potential to a group that is only able to "suggest"
> resolutions as that will also allow for clearer explanations of what each
> resolution means to a Theme author.
> Cais.
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
>> 1) We don't want everyone and their brothers (i.e. all authenticated
>> users) to be resolving tickets. So, I would advise against this approach.
>> 2) The issue isn't that "merely" authenticated users cannot review Themes
>> or leave comments on tickets; rather, it is that the process of "assigning"
>> those Themes, and then following up on them, is an entirely manual process
>> without a Trainee user group.
>> So, the only way to allow tickets to be assigned (in the system), and
>> tracked (in the system), without allowing the entire world the ability to
>> resolve/close tickets, is to add a Trainee group.
>> Is there some downside to this idea that you're seeing and that I'm not
>> seeing?
>> Chip
>> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com>wrote:
>>> Although I haven't tested it, the current permission set allows anyone to
>>> log in and start reviewing.
>>> As long as the reviewer, new or "trainee", assigns the ticket to themself
>>> then the process should flow correctly.
>>> The only benefit I am seeing at the moment to a "Trainee" group, and that
>>> can simply be done by adjusting the "authenticated" group, is the resolution
>>> restrictions.
>>> Cais.
>>> PS: Confirmed an authenticated user can only leave comments no resolution
>>> or assigning permissions available. EAC
>>> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Edward Caissie <
>>>> edward.caissie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I agree with the idea of new reviewers having some sort of workflow to
>>>>> follow to make the initial reviews easier to get done; and, for these new
>>>>> reviewers to become more involved with the process.
>>>>> Although I understand the suggestion of a "Reviewer Trainee" group the
>>>>> basic premise is any community member can write a review for most any theme
>>>>> provided they follow the basic guidelines for writing a Theme review. We
>>>>> essentially have this already documented, perhaps it needs to be re-worded
>>>>> or re-written to take into consideration the recent changes in the Theme
>>>>> Trac management.
>>>>> IMO, if a new reviewer is not able to follow the outline(s) already
>>>>> provided putting them in a "Reviewer Trainee" group may not correct any
>>>>> potential issues but would create more administrative maintenance.
>>>> True; but what I'm envisioning by leaving the Trainee workflow as
>>>> informal would *also* lead to additional administrative maintenance. Without
>>>> a Trainee being able to assign himself a ticket to review, we (the
>>>> Reviewers) have no idea what ticket a Trainee is reviewing (or, we're
>>>> dependent upon them leaving a comment on the ticket, "claiming" it). I can
>>>> see some workflow "clashes" if a Trainee "claims" a ticket, only to have
>>>> another Reviewer complete the review for that ticket simultaneously (since
>>>> everyone is working from the FIFO model for the review queue).
>>>> Further: we have no direct way of knowing when a Trainee has completed a
>>>> review, since the Trainee cannot change the ticket status. We are again
>>>> dependent upon the Trainee reporting back to the Team, via email or
>>>> whatever.
>>>>> Explaining and documenting the process to be used may be more
>>>>> beneficial than restricting what resolutions a new reviewer can use.
>>>>> Given all of the above still leaves me with a question, or two: do you
>>>>> see a great influx of new reviewers around the corner; and, how long do you
>>>>> expect a new reviewer to have the "Trainee" status?
>>>> 1) I'm certainly *hoping* for an influx of reviewers. The process is
>>>> simply not sustainable without more hands. Frumph had a mad rush to get the
>>>> queue back in line several weeks ago, but that certainly wasn't sustainable,
>>>> as it took basically all his time for about an entire week. I've been trying
>>>> to do the same, but I've been operating at a pace that is also not
>>>> sustainable, long-term. (That said, I'm going to try to clear out the
>>>> Priority #2 Queue tonight and tomorrow, as I have some free time.)
>>>> 2) I would think that a new reviewer getting "Trainee" status would be
>>>> as simple as someone saying, "how do I review Themes?", and then you or
>>>> Pross adding that person to the Reviewer Trainee group, and setting them off
>>>> to work on the first available ticket. :)
>>>> Chip
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20101008/b67da73f/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the theme-reviewers mailing list