It might be worth clarifying this process since community members appear to have different ideas about how it works (or should work).
@viktor recently wrote a very good blog article that covers most of it, so I will quote from that.
Anyone can create a petition to make a change to ClassicPress, be it a new feature in the core, removal of a feature, or changes to an existing feature. Once petitions are created, anyone in the community can vote and start a discussion about the petition.
Fair enough. But then note…
There is no specific voting threshold that would automatically warrant petitions for inclusion in ClassicPress core. Instead, we review petitions based on their merits, alignment with the overall direction of the ClassicPress project, and whether or not the petitioner or other community members are able to provide help developing the feature.
So there is no threshhold number that needs to be reached in order for a petition to be accepted/approved/actioned. The only concern for me here is “we review petitions”… who is “we” and how does this review process work?
Then there are various steps or stages outlined. This one should also be noted…
Research Plugin or Pull Request – once someone decides to work on the petition they can either start working using a research plugin (for complex features) or submit a pull request directly to the ClassicPress core repository (for small, simple features and fixes).
So once someone decides to work on a petition they can submit a PR. This doesn’t necessarily mean the petition has been accepted or approved. A PR can be rejected or withdrawn at any stage.
I think the process is basically workable as is. I actually consider petitions to be more like “talking points” now. But I would like to a see a little more clarity around how petitions are reviewed, who reviews them and what they use as their criteria.