IMHO there are many good reasons to maintain the 2 ACK requirement for new packages.
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 people. 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. Cheers, Morten (mok0) -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
