Hey @memphizzz
From the official review process documentation that you shared, the review process is:
- the publisher makes the request for classic confinement in the forum using the store-requests category
- the technical reasons for why the snap uses classic confinement are gathered in the forum post and captured for potential future snapd improvements. The technical requirements will be reviewed by the security team and/or an architect
- the advocacy team, reviewers team and/or architects participate in vetting the snap/publisher
- once the publisher has been vetted, the technical reasons are captured and the request is approved, a store reviewer will issue a snap declaration for the snap and add a comment to the store, giving the URL to the forum post.
The third step is related to the snap/publisher vetting, which was typically done by the @advocacy team. At some point this responsibility was transmitted to the @reviewers team and the process was written in Process for performing Snap Publisher Vetting. However, some fundamental pieces of the original snap/publisher vetting process were missed during that transition, as recently discussed with snap architects.
Snap/publisher vetting process is expected to consider factors such as the user base and community around the project, among other things. You can see an example of some factors considered in Request classic confinement for `yazi` - #5 by niemeyer
I’ll work soon to update Process for performing Snap Publisher Vetting to clearly reflect these requirements
Alternatively, would it be possible to move forward with creating the “file server” category that @ogra mentioned would be appropriate for this use case?
snap/publisher vetting requirements are expected to be met also if the snap fits in some supported category