New Process Review: Post App Release Process

[Jono Bacon]

On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 07:13 +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hello Jono,
> 
> Jono Bacon [2010-07-15 13:03 -0700]:
> > On 14 July 2010 03:12, Martin Pitt <martin.pitt at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > >  * I don't quite understand the purpose of the "The process only
> > >   applies to a specific version of an application" limitation. Does
> > >   that mean that the process has to be re-done for each version bump?
> > >   If software-center merely gets a link to the PPA, or a package name
> > >   in a PPA, then the developer can just upload newer versions?
> > 
> > the original thinking is that the process only applies new versions of
> > software that are not already packaged in the archives. So Lernid 2.0
> > would not be accepted (as their is a Lernid in the archive), but
> > MyFooApp 1.0 would be eligible to use the process.
> 
> Ah, so could it just say what it means with "The process only applies
> to applications which are not already packaged in Ubuntu."?

Currently it says "Only new applications that are not present in an
existing official Ubuntu repository (such as main/universe) are eligible
in this process (e.g a new version of an application in an existing
official repository is not eligible)" - do you feel this could be made
easier to understand?

> > >  * "Includes family-friendly end-user content": If interpreted
> > >   strictly, this might also rule out quite a lot of games. Do we
> > >   really want that?
> > 
> > I added this in the interests of completeness, but this could open up
> > a can of worms about what we consider "family friendly". Do you think
> > we should remove this?
> 
> Right about the potential can of worms, but I think we should reserve
> the right of refusing an application if the board has some good
> reasons for this, such as being against public policy, excessively
> violent or sexually explicit, and so on. If we are going to advertise
> this new software under an Ubuntu umbrella (which it is because it's
> going to be the Ubuntu Software Center), then we should uphold the
> spirit of Ubuntu here as well IMHO. I'm not sure about a good wording
> here, though. "The application conforms to the Ubuntu spirit and Code
> of Conduct."?

I entirely agree with you. The code of conduct applies to general
participatory conduct and not specifically application but, I have
modified the document and I think so long as the app review board are
clear on this (which I think they will be), we should be fine.

> > Thanks, Martin. Do you consider the process as it stands now something
> > you are comfortable to provide a +1 on?
> 
> I would like to see the "specific version" question settled first,
> since this is a fundamental property of the process (check it once vs.
> check every upload). I think the latter would introduce way too much
> effort and redundancy, and would be much more rigorous than for Ubuntu
> itself (where we just check the initial upload). If the process
> intends to do a rigorous check only the first time, and for updates
> maybe just a cursory one (quick look at the changelog, perhaps), and
> the wording is updated accordingly, then I'm happy with it.

I am thinking this could be a good approach - the first check will be
rigorous, but like any Open Source contribution, great work and a
growing good reputation will provide confidence in future reviews of the
application that will be less intensive.

	Jono

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