On 12.10.2012, at 11:01, Jan-Christoph Borchardt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Friday, October 12, 2012, Christian Reiner wrote: > > Clearly makes sense, however: > Since this in effect means censorship (not meant in a bad way here) it appears > to be very important to have a well defined, public catalog of aspects that > apps must be conform with. Otherwise such a revision process might be regarded > as arbitrariness. App developers must know about these rules beforehand. > > This because that review process will almost certainly not only be used to > block apps published to spread backdoors, but also to control general quality: > security aspects like CSRF & XSS, desctructive behaviour towards the > installation or other apps, missuse of features or gaps and so on. > > > That’s why the approval process or the review mailing list should be public. > Not necessarily for everyone to participate because that might create too > much noise, but readable for everyone so there’s 0 confusion as to what > happens. Exactly. I think the review workgroup should come up with a documented process and rules here. Frank _______________________________________________ Owncloud mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/owncloud
