+1 Patrick
> On Sep 24, 2026, at 3:29 PM, Josh McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> but it would be confusing if we introduce requirements that are inconsistent >> with those we already have. > Seems like the requirements we already have are confusing to many now, given > some of the chatter on the other thread. > > I’m +1 to the above relaxations. > > >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2026, at 5:40 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: >> To reiterate, currently there is no requirement for committers to review a >> contribution. The policy is worded quite precisely: at least one >> *contributor* must review a change, and at least two committers must approve >> the change (one of whom may be the author). >> >> The approval may consist of trust that the contributor's experience is >> appropriate for the patch in question. >> >> I am open to the thrust of the refinement, but it would be confusing if we >> introduce requirements that are inconsistent with those we already have. >> >> On 2026/09/24 19:44:34 Caleb Rackliffe wrote: >> > I'm spinning this out of the other thread we have going right now on LLM >> > usage... >> > >> > I'd like to propose that we slightly change the way we deal with incoming >> > patches that only touch existing tests. >> > >> > *Current Policy (and please correct me if I've misinterpreted our current >> > rules)* >> > >> > Fixes from non-committer contributors that only touch existing tests in an >> > effort to stabilize them still require 2 committer reviewers before commit. >> > >> > *Proposed Policy* >> > >> > Fixes of this type from non-committer contributors only require one >> > committer review. CI verification of the effectiveness of the fix is still >> > required, etc. >> > >> > ... >> > >> > That's it. I'm just looking for ways to make small, reasonable changes that >> > might free up committer bandwidth for some of the larger, more >> > earth-shaking things happening right now. >> > >>
