true jolt
From the public PR list, it looks like there is currently a large backlog of open PRs, while many recently merged PRs are maintainer-authored. It also appears that some recently merged PRs do not show a fully green checks/tasks summary in the PR list view.
I understand there may be valid reasons for this:
- maintainer review bandwidth is limited
- some checks may be flaky or non-blocking
- maintainers may need to land their own work to keep the project moving
So I am not suggesting that every external PR should be merged, or that maintainers should stop merging their own changes.
My concern is more about what signal this creates for outside contributors.
For someone trying to contribute, especially a newer contributor, it can be hard to tell:
- whether older open PRs are still realistically reviewable
- whether some parts of the codebase are effectively maintainer-only
- whether CI failures are usually blocking or often treated as expected/flaky
- what the preferred place is to raise process/community feedback
This may matter even more now that AI-assisted contributions are becoming more common. Lowering the barrier to opening a PR can bring more people in, but only if the project can also provide a clear and timely review/triage signal. Otherwise, contributors may be encouraged to submit changes, but not know how to get them meaningfully evaluated.
I am mainly asking whether it would help to make expectations more explicit, for example:
- clearer triage of older open PRs
- faster “not planned / not now / needs redesign” signals
- clearer guidance on which CI failures are blocking vs non-blocking
- clearer guidance on what kinds of external contributions are most likely to be reviewed and accepted
If my reading of the current situation is incomplete, I would appreciate clarification. I am raising this because I think clearer expectations would make outside contribution feel more predictable and sustainable