NEW Packages process

[Scott Kitterman]

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:45:22 +0200 Daniel Holbach 
<daniel.holbach at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Hello everybody,
>
>after a recent discussion about a perceived disconnect between "main
>processes" and "universe processes", I thought a bit about the process
>for NEW Packages.
>
>Historically it was introduced to make sure that new packages are of
>tip-top quality when they enter the archive. We started with 3 necessary
>ACKs and changed it to 2 ACKs for non-MOTUs and encouraged MOTUs to get
>an ACK from other MOTUs. I feel we've been very successful with the work
>we've put into Universe and the quality of new packages.
>
>I propose the following changes:
> 1) cut down the requirement to one ACK of a ubuntu-dev member
> 2) requirement for the person who packaged the new software to become
>bug contact
>
>These changes would have a number of benefits:
> - it would cut down the review overhead and the time of waiting
> - instead of a high entry barrier, have a higher emphasis on fixing
>problems of packages in Universe
> - higher similarity between NEW Packages process and Sponsoring process
> - accredit technical skills of approved ubuntu-dev members and don't
>require re-review
>
>I'd like to hear feedback from regular reviewers, REVU admins, our REVU
>coordinator and people who contribute new packages.

There are a lot of packages that get a single advocate that still have very 
serious problems (particularly in copyright/licensing).  I'm against 
dropping to a single advocate.  If I were to make a change in this area I'd 
change it to require MOTUs get an upcheck from another MOTU instead of just 
suggesting it.

This change would, I believe, have a significant impact on archive admin 
workload.  They'd get a lot more packages and have to deal with more 
rejections and multiple reviews.  In effect this would shift work from MOTU 
to the archive.  I don't think it's a good idea.

We don't have as extensive a process as Debian NM and some MOTUs do not 
have the breadth of experience to be the sole package reviewers.

I also disagree with the idea of upload and fix it later.  When the package 
is being developed is the best time to get it right.

Scott K