Completely agree with this, at least for me one of the goals for Pekko is to make it as easy as possible for people to contribute (both on a technical and process level). This largely stems from the complex nature of the Pekko project itself.
The requiring two reviews part is still open, Akka had this but only for the core Akka project i suspcet due to them having a very high bar for quality. Theoretically speaking if we have enough committers then having 2 approvals may not be that much of an issue. On Fri, 28 Oct 2022, 00:27 Justin Mclean, <[email protected]> wrote: > HI, > > Let me share a tale of a couple of ASF projects I've been involved in: > Project A (an ex ASF TLP) set their committer bar very high. They failed > to attract new committers, and the old committers left. The project retired > to the attic as contributors could not get their patches accepted. > Project B (a ASF TLP project) set their commit bar very high, so high in > fact that you probably could only become a committer by being employed full > time on it for 1 or 2 years. They also require multiple committer approvals > on contributions. The project is having a lot of trouble. They find it hard > to attract new committers, contributors give up contributing to the project > because their contributions don't get reviewed, contributors feel that > their contributions are not valued, and committers find they have too many > things to review. The ASF board has had to step in to correct things. > Project C (a current ASF Incubating project) set a lot of rules around who > needed to review contributions and the quality of contributions. The > contributions dried up in a few months, and the project has almost no one > contributing to it. Despite being valuable and having users, it will likely > end up retiring. > > Kind Regards, > Justin > > > >
