I think the issue with the first paragraph is about: 1- The perceived contradiction between a) trusting committers to act in the best interest of the project and b) simultaneously providing specific guidelines on how to act (e.g., by avoiding conflicts of interest).
2- The specific examples given for the conflict of interest, which if applied generically, could lead to unnecessary avoidance of reviewing. For the former, we could talk about avoiding conflict of interest as a way of "maintaining trust". For the latter, we can state some examples that clearly reflect conflict of interest with no ambiguity. For example, a committer merging a large change that received minimal discussion and review while working for the same employer as the PR author can be an indication of conflict of interest . On the other hand, an author and a committer merely working for the same employer does not necessarily constitute conflict of interest if proper process was followed and sufficient stakeholders were included in the discussion. How about something like this: Committers are entrusted to act in the best interest of the project, and part of maintaining this trust involves managing potential conflicts of interest. While there is no exhaustive definition of what constitutes a conflict of interest, it is important to recognize situations that could lead to that perception. For instance, a conflict of interest might be more evident if a committer approves and merges a substantial change that has received minimal discussion or review, particularly when there is a close professional relationship between the committer and the author. This scenario could be interpreted as providing preferential treatment, which can undermine the integrity of the project. However, merely working for the same employer as the author does not, by itself, create a conflict of interest—especially when proper processes are followed, and a sufficient number of stakeholders are involved in the discussion and review. The focus should be on ensuring transparency and broad input to maintain the trust essential for the project's success. For the last two paragraphs, I thought we could just clarify them a bit. All they need may be a bit of untangling to directly state what needs a discussion vs a vote vs an IIP. Current flow starts with the committer's opinion, then a list of exceptions that require some (or all?) of the above. Further, it was not clear if the exception is to committer's ability to merge or something else, since the exceptions are stated as "There are several exceptions to this process:", but it was not clear what process/which part of it. Hence, being more direct could simplify parsing these two paragraphs. Thanks, Walaa.
