Tennessee Leeuwenburg writes:
I hope that somebody will pick up the slack here, because review is really important to the workflow, and getting more people involved in reviewing at some level is more important (because it's less glamorous in itself) than attracting coders.
I would have said that participating in a project at that level would basically be the best opportunity for ongoing learning and development available.
It is, and IMO Python is an excellent example of that. Please don't get me wrong -- the core developers do a lot of reviewing. It's just not as visible, or as clearly available to non-core participants, as Martin's 1-for-5 offer was. Many, perhaps most, contributions are one-offs by people to whom Python is a tool, not their community. They have little time, and as far as they know, less expertise to participate in the review process. Martin's offer was an open invitation, in terms that any contributor can appreciate, even if they don't take advantage of it right away. I admire that style.
Would you object to my blogging on the topic in line with the comments that I have just made?
It's not my place to say yes or no, to you or on behalf of the community. A suggestion, though. View the contribution visualization video based on the commit log (the URL was posted here a while back, but I don't seem to have it offhand), which shows what a vibrant community this is in a very graphic way.