Hello here, I am asking a lazy consensus on the approach proposed in https://lists.apache.org/thread/ly6lrm2gc4p7p54vomr8621nmb1pvlsk regarding our approach to triaging PRs.
The lazy consensus will last till Tuesday 10 pm CEST ( https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20260310T22&p0=262&font=cursive ) Summary of the proposal This is the proposed update to the PR contributing guidelines: > Start with **Draft**: Until you are sure that your PR passes all the quality checks and tests, keep it in **Draft** status. This will signal to maintainers that the PR is not yet ready for review and it will prevent maintainers from accidentally merging it before it's ready. Once you are sure that your PR is ready for review, you can mark it as "Ready for review" in the GitHub UI. Our regular check will convert all PRs from non-collaborators that do not pass our quality gates to Draft status, so if you see that your PR is in Draft status and you haven't set it to Draft. Check the comments to see what needs to be fixed. That's a "broad" description of the process; details will be worked out while testing the solution. The PR: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/62682 My testing approach is to start with individual areas, update and perfect the tool, gradually increase the reach of it and engage others - then we might think about more regular process involving more maintainers. J.
