amending the new package process

[Miloslav Trmač]

> On Thu, 2015-01-22 at 09:57 -0500, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > > That's good for you, but unacceptable to me. That way we penalize people
> > > who add packages.
> > Penalize in what sense?
> 
> In the sense, that in addition to packaging something new you have to
> review something else in order to get your new package in. If reviewing
> is voluntary it should affect every packager the same, not just the ones
> who bring new packages.

That’s nice in theory but just doesn’t work; everyone “should" be reviewing packages or else what?  The current solution has two advantages, 1) most importantly, it actually (mostly) works, unlike saying “please review packages thank you” 2) it is vaguely fair in the sense that who drains the pool of available reviewers is also required to resupply it.

> I am not against reviews, I'm against something I see it doesn't work.

It is true enough that this doesn’t work well for _new_ contributors, yes.  For already sponsored packagers that can get their package reviewed by swapping a review, I don’t currently think this is a particularly big problem.

> Otherwise we are keeping quality by avoiding anything new.

(Well that is actually a valid choice to make if it is made consciously ☺)  I do agree that we seem to be overshooting with the packaging quality, but how can we actually improve things?  I don’t think the proposal of "wait 2 months then auto-approve” will make much difference for the new/inexperienced/impatient newcomers.
    Mirek