Over the last month we've been pretty constrained by reviewer bandwidth (specifically my reviewer bandwidth). I propose that we start accepting reviews from non-committers as sufficient for a committer to push changes.
I see a few advantages: 1) Like the overall RtC process, this puts non-committers and committers on more of an equal footing. With only committers having the ability to review "for real" we get something analogous to priority inversion where the easiest path forward is reserved for contributions from non-committers. 2) Providing a non-binding review is unsatisfactory. The easiest way to encourage more folks to do reviews (and thus become committers) is to listen to their feedback from the start. 3) We immediately gain more bandwidth as a community when a new person shows up willing to do the work of reviewing. The primary disadvantage is that by definition non-committers haven't yet been vetted by the community in what makes A Good Review. I see that largely as something we can rely on trust of committers for in short term, and address long term by documenting what we want to see in our contributor guide. Thoughts? -Sean
