Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

I have absolutely no idea what you're responding to with this sort of thing. This has never been a free vs paid or Free vs proprietary dispute. This is entirely about there being a process designed to ensure a degree of QA of software released to the public repository, and that process being circumvented.

That's all.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

vote for thread lock

with new threads to carry on "FOSS vs the world" and QA improvement discussions.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

Hasn't the mentioned vetting process proven to be flawful to some extent?

By outcome I think there's not much difference in asking 10 random voters to vote for your repo-file (as suggested some 90'ish postings back) or to set-up 10 fake users doing exactly the same. Still, by outcome that'd be.

A hurdle not being a hurdle is, well.. not a hurdle...

As much as I do remember there would still have to be 3 votes from a "testers group" anyway (whatever or whoever that would be) to get the package actually promoted. Still there's not near 70% assurance that the package is really ready for a broadend number of users.

BUT even your (excuse the povocative word) hallowed vetting process can't seriously save our phones from harm. Being a huge supporter of the open-source idea and especially unlimited control over my device, I have to admit that as of now merely everybody could just gain the same powers...

Compared to e.g. the iPhone with its "limited" API access and sort of "containered" app-handling we're surely facing bigger security issues with the N900/maemo. This might be the time to think about a container-like API allowing only "unharmful" operations by future apps. I know this might offend a considerate amount of you out there, but still...

Not only to ease QA processes, by not having to look into every detail, but much more to really assure that apps can't break into your device. Also think in a couple of months time, when maemo, sorry meego, should become a fool-proof end-user OS.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

It doesn't matter at all if he/she develops games or a word processing application or a browser. It also doesn't matter at all if the application is commercial, non-commercial, free, proprietary, 3rd party, 5th party or no party.

What does matter is it is the first known (!important!) case of a developer not playing by the rules. I wonder how the people feel whose applications decay in -testing because nobody is interested in testing them... And they still wait and hope. And now somebody comes along and skips the whole process. If we don't beat him out the house, others will follow his example... and tomorrow we'll have no Q&A process any more.

The whole thing is healthy because it shows where the limits are. It shows that there are consequences.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

I don't think there's a flaw in the process. I quite understand that it's easy to be incredulous when faced with the idea that requiring ten votes from random people is any sort of worthwhile quality check, but the simple fact is that it demonstrably works. It's worked for Maemo up until now, successfully filtering a lot of interesting, but distinctly not-ready-for-the-masses software from getting from extras-devel and -testing into extras. Similar processes work for other community maintained software repositories, and there's a lot of them around now.

If you get ten votes from random interested people you do actually have a reasonable assurance that there aren't glaring howlers in the code. The case of getting ten votes from the original author of the software essentially means that no testing has taken place at all, and that's clearly a very different situation.

It is (obviously) possible to deliberately bypass the checks, but I'm not sure there's any way top prevent that a priori without also excluding would-be testers from participating. It is possible to watch for and fix abuses after they've happened, and that's exactly what happened here. I think it is worth having a more formal process for dealing with this situation, and that's part of what we're in the process of discussing.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

I agree with the reason behind the outrage... but wasn't the cure worse than the disease?

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

I don't think so, no.

Because I don't compare two applications gone to one developer betraying the community and skipping the Q&A process.

I compare two applications gone to all developers betraying the community and skipping the Q&A process int he future.

What reason would you have to wait for people to test and vote for your application if you can do it yourself?

Well, I'm not going to help build any straw men... I just think some of the response has been disproportionate to the offense.

I'd rather first try to correct bad behavior, then burn a repeat offender at the stake.

On a side but related note: I keep seeing the word "open" thrown about here rather carelessly. Open in this regard should certainly not mean "open to abuse". It should mainly mean "open to inspection". A highly-visible process with reasonable safeguards.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

This is great news, we can toast marshmellows and sing songs round the campfire.

or

Maybe we can build a wickerman instead?
We can then dance like pagans but we need to decide who will play Christopher Lee first.

We can still toast marshmellows.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

That sounds fair, but there's still a risk of things going this way - if the developer reacts badly to being corrected and goes off in a strop, that's up to them. I'm not sure that there's any procedure that we could have that could keep that from happening.

I completely agree, but any process that's going to be openly visible is going to have the potential for people who are upset expressing their feelings. I think the transparency is more important that avoiding the appearance of unpleasantness in public, but I imagine not everyone will agree with that.

I do think that the substance of the response in this case (i.e. apps dropped, upload privileges revoked, explanation required) is the right response. It should just probably be written down somewhere.