# Core Contributor Sprint Retro - June 10th - June 24th **URL:** \ **Category:** Governance\ **Tags:** core-sprints, retrospective\ **Created:** [June 27, 2022, 8:38pm UTC](https://discuss.openedx.org/t/core-contributor-sprint-retro-june-10th-june-24th/7657 "2022-06-27T20:38:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 3
**Author:** ![braden](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/discuss.openedx.org/braden/32/46_2.png) [@braden](https://discuss.openedx.org/u/braden)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2022, 9:19pm UTC](https://discuss.openedx.org/t/core-contributor-sprint-retro-june-10th-june-24th/7657/3 "2022-06-28T21:19:17Z")
> [@Dean](#): > > I’m seeing private links and bare-bones descriptions in a lot of recent commits & PRs. At tCRIL we’re discussing ways to improve things, but we’re also open to ideas. The existing PR template in edx-platform seems to work well for those who are committed to following it, but it’s just ignored by others. The conventional commit linter generally does its job, but the standard it enforces is very lenient. . @kmccormick Thanks for working on it. This is an important issue to me and many others. Personally I would focus on the reviewers who are approving these PRs. If the criteria for merging a PR includes that it has a description or follows the template, and reviewers are merging those PRs without checking that, then it’s likely they are not checking other things which are expected of a reviewer. If someone is a “repeat offender” with approving/merging PRs that don’t have any descriptions or are missing any other important steps of the code review process, I think it would be totally reasonable for them to have their review privileges reduced for a while (e.g. their review is no longer sufficient for merge on its own, and someone else also has to review, until they’ve shown a consistent pattern again). --- _[View the full topic](https://discuss.openedx.org/t/core-contributor-sprint-retro-june-10th-june-24th/7657)._