Request For Candidates: Application Review Board

[Rick Spencer]

On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 09:29 +1000, William Grant wrote:
> > 
> > So, for your #1, I think the idea is that smaller and simpler apps are
> > easy to package.
> 
> How does that refute my point? If the packaging is simple, it's simple
> to get through REVU.

I wasn't actually striving to refute your point. I don't know what to
say, it's a bit hard hard for me to "argue" about all this now, as the
discussion and implementation is in the past. This thread was just
started to get some volunteers for the review board based on the
previous decisions.

> 
> > For your #2, it seems that the pressure for more reviewers will come if
> > there are more apps to be reviewed. I'm not clear on why the apps being
> > bound for one repository or another will significantly change that
> > equation, but I'll take your word for it.
> 
> Splitting manpower between two review sites is pointless and not a
> positive thing.
I'm not so sure. If backports is different thing, it should probably
have a different web page, que, and review team, etc...

> 
> > In any case, it's clear from the feedback on this thread that we badly
> > need to expand our capacity for reviewing in the the community. I know
> > of a few other projects that are facing similar backlogs.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > You can use this process to deliver it to the *current release* that you
> > > > developed it for, you don't have to wait 6+ months for the next release
> > > > to roll around, and you don't have to master the skills for packaging
> > > > and delivering into universe.
> > > 
> > > Backports.
> > I don't actually recall why backports wasn't chosen for the repository.
> > I remember that it was discussed in some detail, though.
> 
> Others have said that it's unsuitable because backports need to be in
> the development release first. But, as also raised elsewhere in the
> thread, this needs be handled somehow anyway. And with the "simpler
> apps" to which you refer, this should be trivial.
I recall also that backports is not suitable to be on by default,
whereas new apps should. Again, this discussion occurred already before
it was all implemented, so it's a bit hard to know what to say now.

Cheers, Rick