> My thinking here is that it's fine if one committer does some minor fixup or adds test cases to a patch that another authored. ...
When the change is minor, I think the committer should not be counted as one of the authors. Otherwise, it looks like the committer is stealing credits from the contributor. How does it sound to you?
> ... my assumption is that all of the patches on the branch have been reviewed according to the above policy, ...
It is not true in some cases. In development branches, we might have commit-then-review; we might also commit warnings and fix them later; etc. The HA branch you brought up is one example.
> ... Finding 3 active committers who are not on that list and are knowledgeable about NN internals ...
In the HA example, although the list of contributor is slightly long but there are still many other committers available. I can easier think of three. If we drop "knowledgeable about NN internals", there are probably >20.
BTW, I don't think "knowledgeable about NN internals" is a requirement according to the bylaws.
For extreme cases that no other committer is available, it probably make sense to have a special discussion for requesting the PMC to relax the requirement for that merge.
> Perhaps we should add a 3-day minimum voting period for branch merges to trunk when that branch didn't follow the normal RTC guidelines?
Is it the case that it must be 7-day for any voting according to the "Voting Timeframes" in the bylaws?