The great thing is that you took the effort to explain this. It is exactly what is needed, we are human, we can be reasoned with, the goal of testing is not a race who can fail more apps. As said, I just skimmed over and skipped the package (as explained, lack of hardware), but did not give it as much thought as now when we have this issue on the table. I can now say OK, I understand what's going on and take a look and thumb it exactly because of this special consideration - that's why we have multiple votes required - sometimes the QA rules don't give a clear yes-no outcome in all contexts and that's why in those cases we need a majority vote. Reading back, I realize I'm quite confusing, I hope people at least get the gist of what I'm saying

I hope Ovi folks don't take this the wrong way, but we have standards

Lack of patience ? It's best for him to explain, but the point is that some people might disagree with the QA process - and that's OK as in we're not the thought police. One of the reasons we got a carte blanche for Extras, including being enabled on end-user devices by default on Maemo 5 (as opposed to Maemo 4.x) is exactly the effort we put in to make sure people don't get super-raw software that is plain broken. If you don't agree with the Extras terms, and do not wish to cooperate in working on it, improving it - you certainly are free to operate your repository (but then you don't get the Extras promotion and maemo.org infrastructure support).

Actually this idea has surfaced several tiems, and I even lobbied for a QA tester position in the maemo.org team, but our budget has been cut and we're struggling as is to rise above the level of pure maintenance mode.