ARB Review

[Jono Bacon]

On 10 April 2012 18:10, cprofitt <indigo196 at rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>  * Review Assessment Criteria - I think it could be useful for us to
>> discuss what kind of criteria the ARB are using to review apps in the
>> queue. I suspect there are areas in which the ARB could provide a
>> lighter-weight review while still providing the assurances they
>> provide around quality and security. As an example, in my (humble)
>> opinion, if an application installs, can be removed, and does not pose
>> a security risk, it should get through. If the application is terrible
>> quality or crashy, the ratings and reviews will tell that story to our
>> users.
>
> That is a double edged sword to me. Applications in the Ubuntu
> repositories need to have a certain quality level or users will
> invariably place some blame on Ubuntu for the resultant crashes.
>
> I know when I add a repo, ppa or install from a .deb that I am taking
> that risk, but when it comes from the repositories there is some
> assumption that it has been tested and works well with Ubuntu.

I agree, but I think this was always going to be the traditional
distinction with Extras; that the quality of the application rests
with the original application author. With main/universe we instead
place a certain level of shared ownership in quality with their
respective core-dev/motu developer roles.

I am certainly not advocating low quality software in extras, but my
hunch is that we need to strike the right balance between an
efficient, low-barrier to entry for application authors to deliver
their content in Ubuntu, and a safe package that runs and can be
installed/removed. This is why I suggest that Extras has a set of
requirements around security and installation/uninstallation but the
actual user experience and quality of the app itself is left to the
developer and user feedback can rate that experience in the ratings
and reviews.

What concerns me is that I suspect that if the ARB places the same
level of exhaustive assessment as a core-dev/motu, the assessment
process will be further delayed and contribute to these bottlenecks. I
just think this is about finding a good balance that is efficient yet
safe.

   Jono

-- 
Jono Bacon
Ubuntu Community Manager
www.ubuntu.com / www.jonobacon.org
www.identi.ca/jonobacon www.twitter.com/jonobacon