+1 as a transitional measure until our project secures enough committers. I think the downside is little, because only committers can push changes and they should be able to judge if the +1 is reliable or not, based on the additional comment and/or the reviewer's past activities.
2015-10-21 10:18 GMT+09:00 Chris Nauroth <[email protected]>: > +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 > > > >
