Request For Candidates: Application Review Board

[Stephan Hermann]

On Monday, August 16, 2010 05:52:38 pm Martin Pitt wrote:
> Stephan Hermann [2010-08-16 16:46 +0200]:
> > So, we are pushing those "non-permanent" applications to ubuntu and we
> > (as in ubuntu) take care, that this doesn't destroy our distro?
> 
> Hm, I think this misunderstanding keeps appearing here: The entire
> point of those apps are that we _don't_ have to include them all into
> Ubuntu.

Yes, but we ship it under the Ubuntu namespace. That means, the customer of 
Ubuntu will think that this app is under control of the Ubuntu Development 
Community. Regarding our other usability issues, this will be the default 
thinking of most if not any non technical involved Ubuntu users.

So, how do we articulate this "special non-taken care app archive" of 
Ubuntu/Canonical?

If someone is pushing its app into the special pocket, we deliver it via 
archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu mmaverick main restricted universe multiverse 
special-app-pocket, therefore our customer will think: Hey it's coming from 
Ubuntu and respectfully from Canonical as hoster, so there is a good QA or 
security, that this app is not hosing my installation.

Yes, you can check the packaging, eventually what the app does, but in the end 
we eventually end up like the old unsupported backport story.

For me, we need to address prominently, that this pocket is neither Canonical 
supported nor Ubuntu Community supported...or we take the burden of supporting 
apps we don't want to have even in the mainstream distro.

This is my concern...it's just like a PPA on LP, where bugreports are 
sometimes flowing into the mainstream distro bug tracker...

Therefore, it seems to me, that this pocket is just like a higher class 
citizen PPA, with blessing of Ubuntu/Canonical hosting, where someone needs to 
take over support, and this isn't only the upstream app developer, because the 
customer will not see upstream, but only Ubuntu/Canonical as distributor.

Well, that's even a problem on MS Windows systems. If a third party app, 
without blessing of MS will do something strange, MS won't take over 
responsibility, because it's not distributed by MS.If a third party app will 
be promoted by MS, most probaly it gets support or simple help from the MS 
support department.

So, how do we address this problem? Distributing packages from the Ubuntu 
namespace, but not taking care of those apps?

Regards,

\sh