A 10 day quarantine may be too long for some and I appreciate the developer(s) need to see the package in Extras quickly but in the real world, I don't see how 10 days go against the 'release early release often' mantra. 10 days before an app reaches a large number of users is not too long IMO. Perhaps the time can be reduced by a bit and maybe more for updates. But on the other end, 5 days for new apps is not enough. We must provide a 'weekend opportunity' since most of us use our free time to contribute towards testing. Reducing it to 7 days would be preferable and enable testers at least a weekend to come around to the app.

I agree with the assessment that the current process has too many 'open to interpretation' areas that have brought the process very close to abuse.

1) Packages without bug-trackers
These are the most common. But again, this is a grey area depending on the size of the project. small project, like wallpapers etc may be not all that necessary. Its not difficult to find many of these apps with >10 thumbs up (e.g. Easy-chroot).

2) Optification
These are easily caught but again there is a grey area on how much should an app take (including/excluding dependencies) before it is categorised as not-optified.

The sad part is both the above checks can be easily automated (build? promotion?) to save energy downstream. Requirement for a bug-tracker or a mailto link would be easy to check. I am sure some simple rules can be applied for checking optification.

The process as it is today is good enough but its not properly written up. Lack of clarity in QA-Checklist doesn't help justifying a thumbs-down against a popular app.

The idea of having a dedicated super-testers group is also a good one to "override" the judgement of testers. but this complicates the process further IMO but perhaps a necessary step as more people begin to rate without a firm understanding the goals of extras-testing.

Maemo community apps stand for reliability and authenticity. I hope we can iron-out the process and come to a consensus quickly.

I strongly disagree with this Texrat - this is moving in the wrong direction to an over-engineered non-solution.

Note that two of the most popular linux distros use the current packaging format and forking away from that is a really bad idea. The maemo build system is already too different from debian (i.e. optify.)

This is my area and I take full responsibility for it. I have written the code, I am just waiting to plug it in to the new builder for it to do its thing. But that is just an excuse. I will work hard to deliver a solution to this step and have it done soon.

As it happens, I made a Brainstorm this morning about this issue. I had no idea that this was already been discussed. But RevdKathy kindly pointed me to this thread. As my defence, Talk was down when I did it, so I could not search the forum.

Anyway, since this is been discussed, let me offer my opinion too. These are the issues I have with the current system (and some of them have already been mentioned):

1. A new version in Extras-testing resets package Karma/quarantine time

For example, I got this app in Extras-testing. I know that there is a little mistake on the actual help file. It say "time you want to countdown from" instead of "count up from". Normally I would just correct this in few minutes. But with the current system I would loose the Karma/quarantine time of the app. I already lost them once, so I'm not going to do that again. Granted, it won't affect the functionality of the app, but it might confuse some end-users. However, I still think that the user would much rather have it sooner instead of having a grammatically correct help file 10 days later (that is, if it would get so many votes, which is highly unlikely, so the real wait might be several weeks. In other words, this current system discourages updates!

2. Why can't bug reporting page be automated?

The preferred place for bug reporting is Bugzilla. Fine. I have nothing against that. However, with the current method, I have to fist release my package, send an email to request a Bugzilla page for my package, wait for the creation of that page and finally release another package with the correct reference to the Bugzilla page. Why could there not be a simple way to auto create the proper Bugzilla place, like the Optify - Auto setting? If some additional pages or settings are needed, only then could a request be sent.

3. There are no testers in Extras-devel

A developer needs testers. But those are not available in Extras-devel. Especially since the user is warned that his device will explode if he activates this repository filled with malicious apps from mad developers who are secretly palning to take over the world. So the only real testing can happen in Extras-testing. Therefore there should be two stages:

Beta testing

A stage where the developer can get valuable feedback from users and thus improve the app. Updates that add features are allowed.

Release candidate

A stage that is initiated by the developer himself. Yes, not all developers are clinically insane megalomaniacs! Some of them actually take bride of the quality of their work and don't want to release a product that is not working well. In this stage, only bug fixing and some minor needed functionality changes would be allowed.

For these two stages, there should be some kind of unified voting system. What system? I have no idea and I'm tired of typing.

Anyway, this was only my opinion. Not that great, I know, but at least it's mine.

If you use the word "rate", most native english speakers are going to give you their opinion, not the outcome of a series of tests. This is the way i set it up when i have an app in testing and am requesting user testers:
The real problem, however, is that there is any need to plug (advertise) testing in the first place. Users eager to download an app can not be expected to do a good job testing it. The ones you can count on to be more impartial are those "weird" (not my word) blessed souls who go through the testing queue because they want to contribute in that way. I wouldn't mention the testing at all in a thread if i thought ten "real" tests was necessary, so i guess my opinion was revealed when i started asking for testers. The way to solve this is either to reduce the total karma so no need is felt to appeal to users to test, or to add a separate requirement for "official testers" so that we can be sure the app is given a thorough test. The first option would be acceptable to me, but the latter (which will require more work on the infrastructure, yes) is the best because it lets the dev sollicit user testing without making them jump through hoops--and this is the process most likely to get him feedback on usabiity issues.

Here's what happens in the rare case that one of the solicited user testers tries to jump through the requested hoops rather than just going and giving a thumbs up:
And then later:
The current system is too much of one, too little of another.

The same could be said about analysing system performance and power management. Still, the community is happy detecting only flagrant cases of sluggish systems and drained batteries.

In your first comment you mentioned an "obvious" case, and it's this "obvious" level what the community can assume without legal training. My only point is that legal problems are troublesome for the community just as they are for Nokia, while in your comment it seemed that you were putting all the responsibility and reasons to be concerned on Nokia alone.

It would be interesting to know the amount of downloads per app in Extras-testing. This would give some indication how many of those who download the app, bother to actually vote for it.

Back to the quarantine issue... in my brief study of software QA materials the past couple of days, one thing that stuck was the emphasis on lines of code (LOC). Granted, sheer LOC doesn't tell you everything you need to know about an app, but it's a decent, rough indicator of complexity.

So maybe LOC and/or compiled file size could be *one* factor that drives quarantine length. We could create demarcation points every-so-many-kilobytes for instance and relate them to days in quarantine (eg, 1 day per 25K file size or 2500 LOC, etc).

Does anyone know of any best practices in this regard? We're not the first to travel this path...

What if these Super Testers (or moderators... whatever they should be called) would have the ability to override the quarantine? I mean, if an app or update would not have any votes from these Mega Beings, the normal quarantine would be in place. But, provided that the app has already enough voters (which, btw, should be 5 ) then one of the Celestial Creatures would be able to give it a green light, if he feels that no further testing would be needed.

There's merit to that, Sasler, but my thinking is we need to first step all the way back to the entry point of the process and start applying rational methodology as opposed to numbers and actions driven by warm fuzzies. "Jailbreaking" quarantine might just ensure more bad apps get out. We need to add more meaning to process steps... especially do what we can to ensure the proposed 5 testers aren't thumbing up or down based on like or dislike.