Hi everyone, LLMs make it easier to write code and open PRs. The Polaris community has seen a lot of PRs recently, which is great, or at least a good problem to have. But it also means thoughtful, high-quality review matters more than ever. Our bottleneck is having enough reviewers to evaluate PRs carefully, maintain project quality, and keep Polaris moving in the right direction.
I think reviewing others’ PRs or design docs can be as valuable as, and sometimes more valuable than, opening more PRs. I believe sustained, high-quality review should be a key consideration for committership. For me, it comes down to three things: 1. The community needs to trust a committer to review and merge PRs responsibly and independently. 2. We need more good reviewers. They help other contributors improve, spread knowledge, and keep the project's quality high. 3. Nobody knows every part of the project. A good committer knows when to ask someone with more context before merging, and when not to merge at all. Going forward, I’ll give sustained, high-quality review more weight than PR count when considering someone for committership. This doesn’t diminish the value of authoring PRs. Authoring and reviewing design documents, along with technical discussions on the dev mailing list, are also essential contributions. Yufei
