Hi Yufei, While I agree with your points, could you clarify the specific discussion topic or problem statement you are addressing?
Evaluating committer candidates based on both the nature of their contributions and their overall project activity is already our standard practice. While I agree that good reviewers are necessary, I believe we should focus on quality over quantity. It is preferable to have fewer, high-quality reviewers and to trust our committers to consult others when needed. Regards, JB On Sun, Aug 23, 2026 at 9:56 AM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
