ARB Review

[Jono Bacon]

On 11 April 2012 08:03, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)
<jonathan at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> For what it's worth, Andrew and I have set up a weekly timeslot where we'll
> be looking at ARB packages together (starting next week Tuesday). I'll
> probably set up another slot like this with another ARB member (most likely
> Stéphane). That might help the current package flow problems somewhat. As
> with anything, if you don't make the time, you won't have it :)
>
> I really think that the idea of the arb-helpers team is a good idea and
> quite frankly, I'm probably better suited to be on something like that than
> the arb-board.

Sounds good. I think if we could build a bigger community of reviewers
and folks to help with any technical issues, this could help build
further efficiencies.

> By the way, I'd like you (for my own education) to expand on what's
> exhaustive about the assessment on the packaging assessments. While I fully
> understand the requirements and needs for having a smooth application
> submission process, it's really just impossible to accept packages that have
> problems like the following:
>  * Submission has no licensing information
>  * Submission is just a .jar file
>  * Submission isn't suitable under Ubuntu CoC (which include porn viewers,
> etc)
>  * Submission requires non-free software to build (additionally, we actually
> require software to build with tools already in the Ubuntu archives)
>  * Submission requires maintainer scripts for installation, or needs a
> daemon, or makes other system modification (like the grub themers,
> tweak-tools, etc)

I agree. All of these seem reasonable. My recommendation is that the
ARB would respond with a request to resolve the issue in hand and if
it is not resolved within a week the submission is rejected. This
would keep the process moving along smoothly. If the work would
require more than a weeks work, the developer can resubmit their
application.

> These responses are really the most common responses to submissions:
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppReviewBoard/Review/Responses
>
> Now to get the queue down we *could* just reject all the packages that
> doesn't meet those criteria, but I don't think that advances the goal of
> this project. It's probably better to help the people who submitted their
> apps to do a proper submission.

I think this is the key point where we are facing challenges. While
the goal of helping every developer to get their submission in shape
is admirable, this is exactly what I think slows down the process. Of
course, there is no reason why the ARB could not recommend other
resources to help the developer be successful in making those
amendments (e.g. pointing them to IRC support channels, AskUbuntu) or
maybe even have another different team for developer support queries.
I do though think the ARB itself should only focus on reviews...if the
reviews turn into more comprehensive bug-fixing discussions, this will
slow down the whole process.

In conclusion, I would recommend a better solution is that the ARB
only focuses on the review of submitted packages and requires issues
highlighted to be resolved within a week, otherwise the submission is
rejected. When the ARB requires such amendments (such as the examples
you provided above, we could recommend other resources to help the
developer.).

> I look forward to hearing any suggestions or ideas for improvement you might
> have!

Thanks, Jonathan, ditto! :-)

   Jono

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