Feedback unitypackages as part of Unity Assets

We just had a package rejected ... this is a structure which was previously approved by the way...
Because it included a unitypackage within it ... which has always been there and was put there on Unity's recomendation on how to handle the needs of that package.

... Our asset like many supports multiple options ... in our case we have additional code you can use if your working with Mirror, MLAPI, etc. and so that extra code that simply wont complie unless you have dependinces installed is packaged up in a unitypackage along with instructions

2nd this package used to have a 3 step install process ... we have simplified that but that process required a unitypackage so the user installed part, configured then installed the second part ... again this sin't terrably uncommon.

3rd the asset has a unitypackage for a base version of one of its dependencies ... again this recomended by Unity as the correct approch

Point is the no unitypackage isn't going to work. At current the only way to handle several use-cases in a practical way is to ship the unitypackage and let the user install it (optionally, after installing something else and or as a means to use an older version of some part of the asset).

2nd the inconsistantcy of your review process ... this is not the first time we have had a package that was previously approved get unapproved. I get it you have a rulle at current (silly as it may be) no unitypackages ... but you could read the submission comment and look at the history before you slap that "rejected" button.

Please double check before slapping the rejected button as that doubles at least the time to release and now in several occasions we have pointed out the error in your rejection logic and got it reversed.
Also please consider removing or adjusting that rule about no unitypackages ... or give us tooling to handle the cases where its needed.