Worth checking - maybe "collaborators" are already excluded from the limit. There is the parallel discussion on where CI will be run (quite orthogonal from this discussion) - but one of the ideas it to classify "collaborators" are "able to use ASF CI" but on the other hand - have more expectations towards them - that they use labeling and comments and respond and close / triage issues.
I think it could be **really** nice and cuts both ways. "Trust" means also "But please also make sure to contribute in other ways". J, On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 10:51 PM Andrew Chang <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for pushing all of this, +1 on 7. > > To be clear, I am one of the group A contributors on Jarek's list, so I am > not a neutral party here. > Personally I would prefer a higher cap like 10... but I agree with Jarek's > and Vincent's point that reviewing and helping others is what Airflow needs > most right now. > > I ran some numbers for group A. Since drafts PR now count, here is what a > cap of 7 means for the 9 people in that group: > ("typical / busy" = open PRs at p50 / p90 over the days they had any PR > open; "over 7" = share of those days above 7): > > - SameerMesiah97: typical 7, busy 10, over 7 on 43% of days > - shivaam: typical 4, busy 7, over 7 on 9% > - Vamsi-klu: typical 6, busy 13, over 7 on 45% > - Andrushika: typical 7, busy 11, over 7 on 48% > - yuseok89: typical 4, busy 10, over 7 on 18% > - steveahnahn: typical 2, busy 10, over 7 on 20% > - ColtenOuO: typical 5, busy 25, over 7 on 40% > - stephen-bracken: typical 1, busy 6, over 7 on 1% > - fat-catTW: typical 5, busy 17, over 7 on 42% > > With a cap of 7, about half of the group would be at or above the limit on > roughly 4 days in 10. > I am not raising this to argue for a higher number; completely fine > starting at 7 for the reason above. Just want it on record, so that if we > revisit the number later we have a baseline. > > On a related note, I like Henry's trust list idea (the bypass list Damian > mentioned). > The numbers above show that the number of good contributors (I assume that > is group A mentioned above) that would need it is small, so the bypass list > should be easy to maintain. > If we agree it is the right direction, I can look into the .asf.yaml side. > > > Thanks, > Andrew >
