Hi @Rdatatable/committers,
#6428 has me wondering if we might need some clarification in the wording here:
|
* How to obtain this role: after a reviewer has a consistent history of careful reviews of others' PRs, then a current Committer should ask all other current Committers if they approve promoting the Reviewer to Committer, and it should be done if there is Consensus among active Committers. |
In particular, I sense there is some tension with the role of Project Member:
|
* Definition: some one who has submitted at least one PR with substantial contributions, that has been merged into master. PRs improving documentation are welcome, and substantial contributions to the docs should count toward membership, but minor contributions such as spelling fixes do not count toward membership. |
Basically, as of now someone could, say, do exclusively reviews of minor copy-editing changes and still qualify as Committer.
I think we should require reviews of the same type of "substantial contributions" that qualify for Membership.
Possible updated wording:
-after a reviewer has a consistent history of careful reviews of others' PRs
+after a reviewer has a consistent history of careful reviews of others' substantial PRs
Possibly, we could add a call-out elsewhere in the document (not sure exactly where) defining "substantial". See also #6750 which would help clarify message translation itself wouldn't count, though it's easily possible to make contributions in the translation space that are substantial.
Hi @Rdatatable/committers,
#6428 has me wondering if we might need some clarification in the wording here:
data.table/GOVERNANCE.md
Line 66 in 7445df7
In particular, I sense there is some tension with the role of Project Member:
data.table/GOVERNANCE.md
Line 52 in 7445df7
Basically, as of now someone could, say, do exclusively reviews of minor copy-editing changes and still qualify as Committer.
I think we should require reviews of the same type of "substantial contributions" that qualify for Membership.
Possible updated wording:
Possibly, we could add a call-out elsewhere in the document (not sure exactly where) defining "substantial". See also #6750 which would help clarify message translation itself wouldn't count, though it's easily possible to make contributions in the translation space that are substantial.