[msujaws]

Pure linkbait. There is nothing in the article that causes any issue with open source.

While the review may have been delayed, all points described by the review are reasonable and have no relation to open-source. The root problem is the slow turn-around time, but writing an article that attacks the volunteers who are doing the reviews is pretty mean spirited. It would have been a lot easier to join #amo-editors, #amo, or #addons on irc.mozilla.org and ask for help there.

To point out a couple flaws with the post: 1. "Worst of all, many Ember.js developers who prefer Firefox have accused us of treating it like a second-class citizen, since they assume the month+ delays are our doing." --- If it's not treated as a second-class citizen, why was an Ember.js Chrome extension written by the team but the Firefox one was deferred to someone outside of the core team?

2. The SDK being out of date is flagged during upload. Add-on authors can still request hand-review, but it's obvious immediately that it won't pass review.