On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 11:46 AM, Victor Stinner firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
2018-06-14 0:26 GMT+02:00 Berker Peksağ email@example.com:
I don't care about total number of commits to be honest. It's not so hard to get 50 PRs merged into master in a month or so.
Wait, what? No developer got more than 50 commits merged into master in less than one month.
That was just a hypothetical number to explain that only looking at some numbers can be misleading... But if you really need "real" numbers, here's a recent example: 16 commits in less than a month: https://github.com/python/cpython/commits?author=andresdelfino
Note2: Pablo got 2 more commits merged into master (22) than Berker (20) ;-)
I don't like what you're hinting, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I will just point out that I've reviewed 89 pull requests since last September. It seems like we have very different understanding of the differences between contributors and core developers/maintainers.
 According to bpo, Pablo has been active in 38 issues:
It seems that he is active, if not very active, on the bug tracker, no? But how can I compare this number to other core developers or other contributors?
Since their name already mentioned in the thread, you can take a look at Cherly Sabella's activity on the tracker.
As I wrote to Serhiy, IMHO you are putting the bar too high.
This isn't about my or someone else's high standards. We keep saying we need more triagers and reviewers, and we keep promoting people who didn't do any issue triaging and code review. It's not fair to contributors who have spent so much time working on these areas.
Please remind that they are very few contributors with available free time and ready to be invested in the long term.
Correct, that's basically the difference between a contributor and a core developer/maintainer. If they don't have time or motivation to invest in a project long term, it's perfectly fine. They don't have to be a core developer to be a valuable member of the community.