PR Review Process Update

[Arrow768]

Since the introduction of the rolling release system in 2018 we have used a system where 2 reviews were required for a (non-bugfix) PR to be labelled with awaiting merge.
One of these reviews had to come from a developer while the other review could come from anyone with a GitHub account ("contributor review").

The quality of these "contributor reviews" varies strongly by individual.
We have some contributors who provide useful reviews.
However we also have some individuals who have never created a single code PR on any GitHub repository yet "review" rather complicated code PRs.
This phenomenon has been dubbed "contributor upvote", because often these "reviews" only signify that the person agrees with the PR description.
Which is not the purpose of a review.

Therefore we have decided to implement a system of "trusted reviewers".
Contributors who have shown the capability to properly review PRs are put on a list of "trusted reviewers".
After the GitHub-Bot has been updated, a review from a trusted reviewer will replace the contributor review.
Until then the contributor reviews will no longer count towards the "awaiting merge" status.

Depending on how this works out, we might expand the review system so both reviews on a feature PR can be from a developer or a trusted reviewer

I will announce the exact process how to become a trusted reviewer once the bot has received the capability to differentiate between developers, contributors and trusted reviewers. (It will largely depend on how that is implemented)
The requirement to become a trusted review will most likely be to have a certain number of (complex) PRs as well as the demonstrated capability to provide useful reviews.
Currently the idea is to make this a relatively informal process that can be completed by contacting a maintainer.

TLDR
Feature Pull Requests will require 2 reviews.
One of these reviews has to be from a developer
The other one can be from a developer or a trusted reviewer
Trusted Reviewers are contributors who have shown the capability to properly review PRs