New Website / Tweeters Volunteer: andrewgdick about volunteer HOT 3 OPEN

In addition we might want to add a rule that PRs must be approved by at least one person that is not part of the same team (ETC coop), allowing these teams to delegate without sacrificing broader community input.

As long as the people who manage reviewers are independent I don't see any hazard. From the moment there is a malicious intent we can revert the action and remove the bad actor.
My initial thought that it didn't make much sense that the Coop goes through the internal reviewing process and then replicates it on GitHub but then I thought that when they review it publicly it's really transparent and best practise for ETC.

It is true that we have a better track history of Bob and Donald, not sure how newer community members selected by the Coop, or other organisations, can demonstrate more contributions than the task they signed up for. Probably in an ideal world but here I lean to give the benefit of the doubt and start creating some momentum => Green light from me.

from volunteer.

My only concern here is that 'being a member of ETC coop' may not be considered by some to be a reasonable standard for past contributions.

Open to comments about how to handle this one. Bureaucracy shouldn't get in the way of pragmatism and we can update the on-boarding process if we need to, perhaps by adding an option for vouching or 'under supervision of', etc.

In addition we might want to add a rule that PRs must be approved by at least one person that is not part of the same team (ETC coop), allowing these teams to delegate without sacrificing broader community input.

from volunteer.

As I said in the original discussion, I have no objection to adding @andrewgdick to the review team. I would encourage others to volunteer as well.

from volunteer.