New package review process

[Scott Kitterman]

Just slightly amended, this proposal was approved today at the MOTU meeting:

STANDARD WORKFLOW:

LP is where needs-packaging bugs are created to document the desire for or 
intent to package something.

Once someone starts working on a new package, they assign the bug to 
themselves and set status to In Progress.

Once an initial draft package is uploaded, the URL to the package on REVU is 
added to the bug in a comment and action switches to REVU. Note:  At UDS 
siretart and sistypoty hacked on REVU so it will no present a stable URL 
based on source package name so there is a stable URL to put in the 
needs-packaging bug.

Review/Comment/Advocacy of the proposed new package will be done on REVU.  
Once the New package is uploaded (and in the New queue), it is archived on 
REVU and action returns to LP.

After upload, the needs-packaging bug is set to Fix Committed and then it will 
automatically get Fix Released is (as it should be) the bug number is in 
debian/changelog.

ALTERNATIVES:

The key policy consideration that all alternatives/experiments MUST support is 
that two MOTUs must agree that the package is ready for upload.

They key workflow considerations are:

1.  There must be a link in the LP bug to where the proposed package can be 
found.
2.  MOTU advocacy must be documented.
3.  The alternative/experimental workflow MUST be clearly described as 
alternative/experimental
4.  The alternative must provide a clear source of data on the status of the 
package revu.

So far I've updated https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment, but there are 
other pages that still need to be touched.  I'll try to get that done over 
the weekend.

Scott K