I would suggest maybe we don't need to formalize criteria. Actually, let me suggest... let's just agree on a sort of mission statement for the award.
E.g. "to recognize meaningful contributions by new contributors" or something. Then people can apply that however it makes sense to them. And if we find that that isn't good enough, we can revisit. On Sat, Dec 13, 2025 at 11:54 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > Just to be clear (because that might be not clear). > > LAZY CONSENSUS is generally broken when someone raises "I think it should > be different". So the lazy consensus was broken when doubts were raised by > Amogh, Jens and Wei. > Based on that, I think you should start a new discussion - summarising the > learnings and likely trying to get to "actual" consensus iin the course of > that discussion (if not possible - that should end with the vote. or > dropping the idea if we can't converge to a good consensus. > > J. > > On Sat, Dec 13, 2025 at 8:48 PM Srabasti Banerjee < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks for your inputs Wei! For your latest response below, my concern is > > mandating the criteria to be at least 10 or 5 or 20 PRs to qualify to get > > nominated for Rookie PR, is too high a bar for new contributors. Folks > will > > try to focus more on the number of PRs in a month, just to qualify, which > > might lead to low quality PR submissions. > > For a contributor who picks up a challenging PR, and provides a long term > > good quality solution with strategic design, it will be unfair. After > all, > > it takes time to make soup from raw ingredients when cooking:) > > > > Quality over quantity is preferred by the community I think, so we have a > > stable product. Please chime in all 👈. > > Every new contributor has their own personal choice. They will stay as > long > > as they get support and recognition from the Airflow community. > > > > *Let's finalize the criteria for Rookie PR and get the ball rolling, > since > > the lazy consensus time has passed already! More awards are yet to start > > after this thread is locked in:)* > > > > Warm Regards, > > Srabasti Banerjee > > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 1:15 AM Wei Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The 10 I meant was the minimum required to qualify. The main reason is > > > wanting to keep the newcomer for a bit longer. If this is too strict, 5 > > > might also be a good choice. > > > > > > Best, > > > Wei > > > > > > > On Dec 9, 2025, at 2:37 PM, Srabasti Banerjee < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes the award should be one time award per person for the same Rookie > > > > award. Else, the same person can win multiple times - that defeats > the > > > > criteria of recognizing new contributors, right? > > > > They can win again in another award like Top PR of the Month, no > issues > > > on > > > > that. > > > > > > > > As per original thread, based on consensus from those who voted, and > > the > > > > November PR thread, below were the numbers from first responses. > Hence > > > > chose the majority number 10. > > > > 10 PRs - Wei, Jen > > > > 20 PRs - Pierre > > > > > > > > At the minimum, 1 PR submission is needed to qualify, hence put it > here > > > > above, for clarity sake. > > > > New contributors would not be in the Top 100 for sure, from so far > > > whatever > > > > I have observed so far. We can manually check if needed before voting > > and > > > > deciding results as well, if an exception happens in the future. We > can > > > > check via script as well for this. However, I initiated this thread > to > > > > finalise the criteria and not the implementation here. > > > > > > > > Sure - let us discuss more! The more inputs we have from everyone, > the > > > > better it is, since this is FOR the community AND BY the community :) > > > > Let us hear other opinions that come in on this thread, before > > finalizing > > > > on the criteria for Rookie PRs before Friday! > > > > > > > > Warm Regards, > > > > Srabasti Banerjee > > > > > > > > *Kindly note : We recognised the need for different awards to > recognise > > > > other contributors using different criterias in the future, as was > > > > discussed in the discussion thread mentioned above. This thread is > only > > > for > > > > the Rookie PRs.* > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 8, 2025 at 9:49 PM Wei Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> I don’t think the consensus was “at least 1 PR (>=1) and less than > 10 > > > PRs > > > >> (<10).” My understanding was more like over 10, but it doesn't > appear > > in > > > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/graphs/contributors. (This might > > not > > > >> even be the consensus yet.) Our consensus was to proceed, but the > > > details > > > >> may require further discussion. > > > >> > > > >> Best, > > > >> Wei > > > >> > > > >>> On Dec 9, 2025, at 1:35 PM, Amogh Desai <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Just checking something I am not to clear on - is it a one time > award > > > per > > > >>> person? > > > >>> (Keeping the criteria in mind) > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks & Regards, > > > >>> Amogh Desai > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2025 at 10:08 AM Srabasti Banerjee < > > > >>> [email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Hello All, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Following the discussion thread below, calling for a lazy > consensus > > on > > > >>>> criteria to determine Rookie PR of each month: > > > >>>> Discussion: > > > >>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/rz28lgots24pq54x67stdyyrq6848ptm > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Rookie PR of the Month will run for new first time contributors > with > > > at > > > >>>> least 1 PR (>=1) and less than 10 PRs (<10) successfully merged in > > the > > > >> same > > > >>>> month. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> The lazy consensus will end Friday, 12th of December, 6 pm PST. > > > >>>> No need to answer unless you do not agree with the consensus. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Thanks, > > > >>>> Srabasti Banerjee > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > >
