First, let me start off by completely agreeing that @Dreamy_Jazz has been doing great work, and thank you so much for your contributions. But, that work has been primarily the creation of patches, not reviewing the patches of others. I've added to the task description links to the patches with +1s, -1s, or comments from them (in all repos, though so far only checkuser patches have been reviewed/commented on). I see very few such patches - currently, there are

• 4 patches with a +1 from them (all have merged)
• 1 patch with a -1
• 7 patches with comments, the 5 with either a +1 or a -1, and 2 patches that are reverts

At this point, I just don't think they have enough experience reviewing other people patches, since that is a slightly different skill than creating your own. Since there are not very many pending patches for checkuser that Dreamy Jazz isn't the owner of, perhaps you can spend some time reviewing patches for other repos just to demonstrate familiarity with the workflow?

Update: based on explanations below by others, it seems that people don't view experience reviewing as a prerequisite to +2 rights, so I support this request

In T311331#8026655, @DannyS712 wrote:

But, that work has been primarily the creation of patches, not reviewing the patches of others. <snip> At this point, I just don't think they have enough experience reviewing other people patches, since that is a slightly different skill than creating your own.

Sure, but I don't think that should be our criteria for granting +2 rights (nor has it been historically). It's generally not very useful to review code when you don't have +2 (see +1 means reviewer has a working mouse), so we trust that people will apply good judgement whenever they get the rights. In previous (successful) nominations I used to use language like "I trust them to review and approve patches in areas they're familiar with and ask for help if they're not.", which I think is applicable here too. Finally, I think vital projects like CU need all the love they can get and would rather err on the side of empowering people to continue working on them than witholding access from people who are obviously trusted but may have not demonstrated it in Gerrit yet.

Support. I don't consider the lack of existing reviews to be a problem, @Dreamy_Jazz's previous contributions and on-wiki functionary roles clearly demonstrate that we can trust them to make good decisions about patches in areas they're familiar with and ask for help if they're unsure.

(@Legoktm: can you send an email to wikitech-l about this, please? While not strictly required by policy since this is not about access to all of mediawiki/*, I think we should ensure that everyone interested has seen this and has had the ability to comment since we're still talking about a WMF deployed extension.)

Support. I would also like to point out that this gerrit -1 query is not very meaningful, as it only shows the patches that currently have a -1 from Dreamy, but not the ones he gave -1's to in the past.

Thanks for the nomination.

Yup, wholeheartedly support this — the most important criteria here is competence in knowing when not to +2.

Dreamy shows a familiarity with the codebase, and can be trusted to defer in cases where they're not sure

Support. And what @Zabe said. FWIW, the patches on which @Dreamy_Jazz has reviewed show that they have a good grasp of what makes for good quality code, what makes for a good patch, and how to provide constructive feedback.

In T311331#8026682, @taavi wrote:

(@Legoktm: can you send an email to wikitech-l about this, please? While not strictly required by policy since this is not about access to all of mediawiki/*, I think we should ensure that everyone interested has seen this and has had the ability to comment since we're still talking about a WMF deployed extension.)

Done.

Support. Let me also use this opportunity to thank @Dreamy_Jazz for all their work on CheckUser.