Hi, Strengthening code review quality is a good goal, but we should be cautious that it doesn’t become another way to circumvent vendor neutrality.
At Apache, community oversight and openness are what ensure quality. When rules like mandatory multi-review or branch-protection settings are introduced, they can shift that balance. If most reviewers come from the same employer, a “two-review” rule doesn’t actually improve independence; it can just formalise corporate gatekeeping and make it harder for outside contributors to participate. If the aim is to improve review culture and if that is an actual issue, that’s best handled through community practice, for example: - Encouraging more than one reviewer for major or risky changes, but keeping the process flexible. - Ensuring that reviewers, where possible, come from different organisations. - Documenting this as a recommended approach in CONTRIBUTING.md. That approach would more likely strengthen both code quality and community health and without undermining independence or the principle that all committers act as individuals, not representatives of their employer. I suggest the project reflects on the real reasons to why they are introducing this and what problem it solves. Kind Regards, Justin
