I don't know if this has really been discussed yet, so I apologize if I missed it somewhere else.
First, it is clear to all of us that the review process needs some major changes and a lot can be done to improve the workflow. I am seeing a lot of talk about many great ideas (better use of statuses, establishing tags for gates or security issues, managing gates in other ways, use the sandbox issue queue, don't use the sandbox issue queue, use multiple reviewers for each application, etc) but how are we going to reach a consensus? Everybody has their own opinions (yes, part of collaboration), and this just seems to be resulting in a lot of opposing suggestions with some more insistent about their method than others. It's likely that we can find a happy medium and develop an efficient system with some collaboration and official decisions. So, why not get to it and set up some sort of official meeting every few months? (I think I saw this mentioned before) Has this been discussed more extensively?
I guess I'm with ccardea (?) on desiring more structure in some ways (but maybe that's just the military man in me). And I suppose it just looks to me like the queue is growing with no end in sight, but at some point we all know that needs to turn around and the sooner these efficiency solutions are implemented the shorter the backlog will get ultimately. I'd hate to see it pass two or even three months (I think a possibility) before any short term solutions are put in place.