Add-on review times at ATN

Mark Rousell mark.rousell at
Tue Mar 19 20:01:23 UTC 2019

On 19/03/2019 18:11, Jörg Knobloch wrote:
> My conclusion is that everyone is happy with waiting times of up to
> six months since the discussion has drifted elsewhere (like on so many
> occasions).
> That's a positive signal, so we leave it as it is, case closed.

Unmoderated discussions do drift. It doesn't necessarily mean that the
original issue has been satisfactorily addressed. ;-)

No, since you ask, I don't think that waiting 6 months for review is
acceptable (and it greatly surprises me that it is that long) but I did
not comment on your original post since it's something that I did not
feel that I could reasonably comment on (I only commented later because
the thread had *already* drifted at that stage).

Is there a break down of review waiting times? It's not clear to me from
your post what percentage of reviews are actually taking that long.

If it's commonly taking six months then I can only presume that it's due
to lack of volunteers or, as you suggested, stalled reviews outside the
control of reviewers. Since I am not in a position to volunteer as an
ATN reviewer it feels a bit hypocritical for me to say that the
situation is unacceptable.

So I suppose the question is: Are more reviewers needed?

Mark Rousell

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the tb-planning mailing list