+1 I agree with this model in the early days of the project. Let's watch it closely. As we grow the community, we might find that we prefer to switch back to the traditional model of requiring a binding +1 from a committer.
I'll also take this opportunity to apologize for my own lack of participation on reviews. I'll try to address this on my side. Meanwhile, thank you Sean for suggesting a very practical solution. --Chris Nauroth On 10/20/15, 1:48 PM, "Sean Busbey" <[email protected]> wrote: >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 >
