There's a point I've argued in conversation that I'm not sure has been articulated explicitly as part of this consultation, so I'll do my best to lay it out here.
Briefly: It seems likely to me that we're getting the PR/MR model whether we want it or not. My thinking is as follows:
- The current status quo is not that everything lives on Gerrit. Per the "Why" section, it's Gerrit plus 150-odd repos on GitHub.
- If we didn't have a requirement that things deployed to production be hosted on Gerrit, the GitHub number would almost certainly be higher.
- If we don't provide standard code review & CI tooling that meets some basic expectations, projects and teams will continue drifting to other platforms.
- Eventually, we're going to reach a crisis point with Gerrit. It'll be brought to us by one or more of:
- Our ability to maintain a public Gerrit instance (already stretched to the breaking point in terms of people and resources)
- The upstream health / responsiveness of Gerrit as a project
- Pressure from developers and projects/teams to ratify the de facto migration away from Gerrit which is already underway
And at that point, my expectation is that we're going to wind up scrambling to adapt, locked into a fully-proprietary monopoly platform (GitHub) with little control over the decision, and cleaning up a few years' worth of additional fragmentation. We'd still be adapting to PR-style workflows and tooling, just less deliberately, not on our own terms, and at a greater remove from the path taken by other projects that share a great many of our values and concerns.
In thinking this through, it's also become clear that if we elect not to migrate away from Gerrit at this time, we're still going to have to spend substantial money and person-hours on the technical problems of our code review infrastructure. There's just not a viable option to do nothing here. (I specify "technical problems" because this consultation is first and foremost about improving an unsustainable software situation, not about whether our culture and priorities around code review need help. The latter is a very important question, but it is not the problem we set out to solve with this process.)