kcne left a comment (openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website#3815)
> I've recently found myself reviewing less frequently, not because I expected
> progress on particularly my submissions in return, but because I didn't see
> my reviews contributing meaningfully to overall progress.
I've experienced similar issues when trying to review PRs or help maintainers
move things forward. At the same time, I understand the challenge maintainers
face — juggling multiple PRs, issues, contributors and solutions can be
exhausting. That said, I do feel that both review velocity and overall
responsiveness have improved noticeably since last year, which is great to see.
> A big part of that, I think, comes down to differing review criteria between
> contributors and maintainers. That’s fair to some extent, but it becomes
> frustrating when a maintainer "fast-tracks" their PR that renders an earlier,
> unreviewed PR obsolete, without any discussion or acknowledgment of the
> overlap. It feels dismissive to those who spent time contributing and
> reviewing.
I think a key part of the issue here is the lack of clearly documented
priorities and criteria, especially for contributors - both new and
experienced. Since this is an open-source project, it's standard for
contributors to invest time in areas they think are important, only to find
those efforts sidelined. A transparent, prioritized "roadmap" (e.g. security
fixes, critical bugs, moderation tools) would help align contributor efforts
with current goals. This would also allow maintainers to focus more effectively
and reduce the backlog of PRs.
Opening up tags or labels to contributors has come up before as well. It could
bring value by helping organize and surface priority work, though I understand
it might introduce overhead if not limited to trusted contributors.
> It’s even more disheartening when follow-up questions on concerns go
> unanswered, especially when the one maintainer who raised them refuses to
> elaborate. In those cases, it feels like the PR is being silently closed off,
> without the transparency that a clear rejection or actionable feedback would
> bring.
Totally agree on this one - even minimal feedback on stale PRs can help
contributors wrap them up or close them out. It avoids limbo and leads to a
cleaner PR queue, which benefits everyone involved.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/3815#issuecomment-3059242180
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
<openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/3815/3059242...@github.com>
_______________________________________________
rails-dev mailing list
rails-dev@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/rails-dev
