Hey all,
Sorry for the spam, the voting page doesn't do formatting properly, so let me elaborate on my -1 a bit:
Lacking personal experience with Lucas I can only go by what was presented in the nomination. To me most PRs are of somewhat reasonable size (except one or two that seem a bit unfocused), but I obviously did not look at the PRs in terms of code quality. I did however notice that most PRs don't have a ton of test code which makes me question the "high software quality standards" statement. I am a stickler for tests, so that just might be me.
There are other issues I see, specifically:
- many PRs have no description or reviews on them
- some PRs seem to have been created by someone else, but are still listed. not sure how they are relevant.
- PRs don't have any labels, linked issues or other metadata on them, which (to me) would demonstrate proper OSS procedures.
- many PRs have merge commits and commits from other contributors on them. To me that indicates poor PR hygiene and focus.
- I don't know what "reviews and harmonization" means, because this bullet point only links the repos, so I'm having a hard time understanding the contributions there.
Overall I see considerable room for improvement in terms of OSS procedures and transparency, and I am very sorry to say that as things stand I cannot +1 this for the reasons stated above.
Best,
Paul