Presuming no more feedback, I think we're good to go on this? I'll try to find some time this weekend to update our contribution guide to call this out a little.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Kengo Seki <[email protected]> wrote: > +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 >> > >> >>
