NEW Packages process

Morten Kjeldgaard mok at
Wed Apr 16 16:08:50 BST 2008

IMHO there are many good reasons to maintain the 2 ACK requirement for new 

As someone who has contributed several packages through the REVU system, I 
admit that I was initially frustrated with the slow and circumstantial 
reviewing procedure. However, the advantage of the system gradually became 
clear to me, and I became quite impressed with the great care and 
professionalism that was put into the review of each and every package. 
Needing two advocates for my packages forced me to use IRC and get to know 

It quickly became clear to me as a contributor that "getting your stuff into 
Ubuntu" is not something you "just do". It takes perseverance and hard work. 
This contributes to giving the Universe a good reputation in the free 
software world. And, it ensures a top notch repo.

Needing two ACKs from MOTUs has nothing to do with "not being able to trust 
just one".The scientific world uses a peer review system, with two, three or 
more reviewers involved, and that system is not based on a lack of trust.  
It's simply a sensible QA procedure.

For the MOTUs, there is an additional advantage involved in requiring 
co-sponsors, and that is the development and maintenance of an interacting 
and collaborating culture. If MOTUs could simply grab an upload from REVU, 
review and sponsor it, they could in practice work in parallel universes 
without ever having to interact.

The package review system may need a service check, and it is always 
constructive to see if a workflow can be improved. But let's not abolish a 
reasonable up-front QA procedure.

Morten (mok0)

More information about the Ubuntu-motu mailing list