[theme-reviewers] splitting reviewers between queues

[Kirk Wight]

My concern is that we're spending all of our (collective) time on that
low-hanging fruit; AFAIK, we haven't left Priority 1 for weeks (please let
me know if I'm wrong). My thinking was that we could spend *most* of our
collective time on #1, but keep others moving (however slowly).

Of course, it just brings up bigger issues of how the review team can
"scale" as we move forward. I guess my main concern is that the popularity
of submitting themes to the repo seems to be outstripping the rate at which
we add reviewers, and as theme reviews get more complicated (dozens of
options and/or included "frameworks"), the process will get even slower.
Just trying to look ahead and be proactive.

Thoughts on the big picture?



On 26 January 2012 10:16, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com> wrote:

> PS ...
>
> 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.
>
>
> Cais.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> The essential premises of the Trac review priority is still one of FIFO
>> (First-In First-Out).
>> 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.
>>
>> For example a custom query such as this one:
>> http://themes.trac.wordpress.org/query?owner=&status=new&col=id&col=summary&col=status&col=type&col=priority&col=time&col=changetime&order=timeshows 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".
>>
>>
>> Cais.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Chandra Maharzan <maharzan at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> This would be great. I haven't seen queue 2, 3 moving at all for a long
>>> time. :)
>>>
>>> 2012/1/26 futeng.org <bbq at futeng.org>:
>>> > I hope so!
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ------------------ Original ------------------
>>> > From: "Kirk Wight";
>>> > Date: 2012年1月26日(星期四) 晚上10:25
>>> > To: "theme-reviewers";
>>> > Subject: [theme-reviewers] splitting reviewers between queues
>>> >
>>> > Hello reviewers,
>>> >
>>> > I'm wondering if we should consider splitting reviewers between some
>>> > different queues, just to keep all queues moving.
>>> >
>>> > I haven't seen queue 1 empty yet myself since the "getting back on
>>> track"
>>> > changes in December. I've also noticed that queue 1 can get a bit
>>> dominated
>>> > if submitters are quite active (no fault of their own - obviously we
>>> need to
>>> > keep encouraging regular updates to themes).
>>> >
>>> > Maybe, for now, we could assign a reviewer to each of queues 2, 3 and
>>> 4, and
>>> > everyone else plugs away as always?
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> > theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> > http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> cmans
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20120126/3efc100e/attachment-0001.htm>