I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about whether we should formalize the review process. The status quo isn't working well, so I'm in favor of trying something. On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 01:29:51PM -0500, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > I think the main problem we have is social, not organizational. There's > little incentive to jump into the laborious review process compared to > hack on something we like in our free time. We need to promote and > value review work more, without making it feel like a compulsory chore. > That's a great challenge to solve for a project that's driven by > volunteers. However, I agree with this point wholeheartedly. We really need to ask ourselves, why would anyone review patches? It's a lot of work, often thankless, and unfortunately sometimes unpleasant. > I'll venture a suggestion to explore: adding enticements to review (some > playful guidelines such as "while waiting for your 2 weeks review > period, please try to review twice as many other submissions that have > been patiently waiting on the patches tracker :-)", or some stats > crunched and advertised periodically to guix-devel or even our to our > blog about our top reviewers, etc.). In release announcements, alongside to the the normal `git shortlog` list of authors, I suggest also publicizing the list of committers: `git shortlog --numbered --summary --committer v1.4.0..HEAD` A small thing, but hopefully one of many incentives to review and commit.