On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Rick Spencer <[email protected]> wrote: > Oops, I accidentally did a reply just to Dave instead of to all. So ... > > anyway, I think that we need an automated system that punishes > spammers or what not who upload via bots or however, instead of > punishing reviewers and bona fide developers by over-complicating the > system. Our reviews should be sufficiently automated that a spammer > gets filtered out. Our reviews should be sufficiently consistent that > notes from a previous rejection should not be necessary, either it is > suitable to pass or it's not, the history of the discussion for > getting it there should not be relevant. > > We really really really need to make this as highly consistent and > efficient system for reviewers, for developers, and users. Any manual > interventions at this stage should be considered 100% temporary until > we figure out a way to automate them out. > > From the developers point of view, I think every app submission should > be accepted or rejected. If it was rejected, they can resubmit with > whatever fix (to the description or to the permissions for the most > part, since that is primarily what will be reviewed). The next > reviewer doesn't need to do anything but review the current > submission. The history of submissions should be irrelevant.
Absolutely. So, I think we'll have a few layers to peel until it's automated, and this is how I see it: Phase 1 (today!): Manual reviews using a script that checks most things, manually checking others. This will be the biggest learning process for us and is mostly all hands on deck. Phase 2: The script runs automatically and auto-rejects most common cases without manual intervention. Only a small amount of manual intervention involved in approving apps. Phase 3: A certain category of apps get auto-approved (for example, apps that don't ask for extra permissions), some remain with minimal manual inspection. Phase 4: The majority (90%+) of the apps submission don't involve a human (this involves us having some level of anti-malware/virus, inspection for certain common abuses, etc) Phase 5: Human intervention is very much exceptional, and mostly looking into reports of abusive apps that have already been submitted. I want us to tread carefully so as to not create a reputation that the Ubuntu ecosystem is a haven for malware, and learn iteratively. -- Martin -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-appstore-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-appstore-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
