actually, looks like some contributions were in github instead of gerrit? Either way, the ownership of this should be sorted out somehow.

@Nicolas_Raoul I can't find your gerrit user name, can you add it to the description?

Never mind, found it.

Are we proposing that the forked repo be considered the new *official* Commons app? If so, we should consult with Legal.

No, that the old repository should be maintained by the people who forked it and are currently maintaining that fork.

In T127678#2050959, @Dbrant wrote:

Are we proposing that the forked repo be considered the new *official* Commons app?

How is "official Commons app" exactly defined? What makes something "official"?

We do actually have some (very old) guidelines for making an app "official":
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Apps/Developing_an_official_app

(see the Talk page, as well)
At the bottom of the wiki page, we promise to "polish it based on real cases, as they come." Maybe this can be one of them?

That page says:

However, if you do not want to use the Wikimedia Foundation's trademarks, these requirements do not apply.

Nicolas is only asking repository access, and that should be granted as he reactivated the repository with success.

If Nicolas will want to ask access to trademarks, distribution channels (e.g. on the markets) or other, that will be a separate request.

@Nemo_bis Actually we have a separate issue about how we would like to revert to using the Wikimedia Commons logo instead of the current ugly logo (that I drew as a replacement to avoid the kind of legal problems that caused another of my apps to get banned from Play Store): https://github.com/nicolas-raoul/apps-android-commons/issues/68
So yes, access to the logo would be great. Request created per your suggestion: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T127791

@Dbrant : I don't know if we want to be "official" (not sure what that means), I just want to solve https://github.com/nicolas-raoul/apps-android-commons/issues/63 that's all. But anyway here is how we fulfill the criteria of the page you found:

100% open source and free of charge. OK
No ads or commercial links. OK
(Same user data policy as official apps). OK
Use of agreed user-agent for analytics. OK
Developed openly using Wikimedia infrastructure for code (GitHub as alternative is fine), documentation & bug management. OK (Github)
Topic / platform doesn't overlap with official projects. OK
Parity of essential features with the official version. OK if that means uploading and setting name/description/categories
UX integrated with the native OS. OK
Tested by the community with no major/blocker bugs. OK
Maintainers responsive to feedback / bugs. OK
Maintenance plan. KO open source is the plan

By the way, that guideline was created by me 3 years ago :-)

This looks like a reasonable request. Great that the app was revived. What is blocking this?

In T127678#2171964, @JeanFred wrote:

What is blocking this?

If I understand https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/board/1076/ correctly I'm afraid "somebody just needs to do it" but "somebody" is undefined. :(

Change 308669 had a related patch set uploaded (by Niedzielski):
Remove Android Commons app job

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/308669

Mentioned in SAL [2016-09-06T10:37:50Z] <hashar> gerrit: mark apps/android/commons hidden since it is now community maintained on GitHub. Will avoid confusion. T127678

Change 308669 merged by jenkins-bot:
Remove Android Commons app job

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/308669