NEW Packages process

[Reinhard Tartler]

Daniel Holbach writes:
>> >  2) requirement for the person who packaged the new software to become
>> >     bug contact

Cesare Tirabassi <norsetto at ubuntu.com> writes:
> I thought that was the norm ...

I agree that this is a very good idea, but I don't rememer if or when we
did make that a requirement.


Anyways, let me think aloud about this. We want to have good packages
contributed to the universe. By making it mandatory to become a bug
contact for a package, we defact demand from the contributor to continue
caring for the package. Issues I see with this:

 * for NEW packages, there is obviously no LP entry yet. This means
   manual for the sponsor to periodically check the package to become
   accepted and the contributor to sign up as bug contact. (which means
   additional work for the sponsor). How should the sponsor handle that
   case that the contributor fails to sign up as bug contact? (e.g. the
   contributor looses interest in the package right after uploading).

 * the contributor is asked to actually look at the bugs and care for
   them. What is the procedure if he is not able to properly maintain it?
   This point is obviously not a regression as we used to not care about
   having broken packages removed from universe. Instead we hope that
   someone stands up to fix it. Still, Daniels proposal is about a
   policy for accepting NEW packages, and preventing poor packages from
   entering the archive IS a valid concern.


We need to find a balance between the following goals:

 1. having a lot of shiny new packages in universe
 2. encouring contributors to join MOTU
 3. keeping broken packages out of universe

FWIW, I think points 2 and 3 should have a priority. I don't think point
1 should be a priority.

-- 
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4