Configure pull request limit for users without write access

Bắt đầu bằng việc xem lại tài liệu GitHub được liên kết về giới hạn pull request và cuộc thảo luận với các cộng tác viên trong issue này. Công việc được coi là hoàn tất khi đạt được quyết định của cộng đồng về giới hạn và thiết lập repository đã chọn được ghi lại hoặc áp dụng.

The open pull request count on nodejs/node has grown beyond 1000+. A portion of these are from individual contributors who have a high number of open PRs at the same time, which places demands on finite collaborator review capacity.

GitHub provides a setting to limit the number of open pull requests from users without write access. This helps balance the need for open contribution with the reality of limited human review resources.

Proposal

Should we set a pull request limit for users without write access?

This idea was discussed among collaborators, and 5 was suggested as a reasonable starting point.
We'd like to hear broader community input before making a decision.

Rationale

• Every open PR requires collaborator time for review, feedback, and follow-up. A high volume of open PRs from a single contributor can reduce the time available to review contributions from others.
• With the rise of AI-assisted tooling, it is now easier than ever to generate pull requests at a higher frequency, which can outpace the capacity of human reviewers.
• A limit encourages contributors to prioritize their most impactful changes and work with collaborators to get existing PRs merged or closed before opening new ones.
• It also serves as a backstop against automated spamming attacks that open multiple PRs.
• Contributors who are consistently engaged at a level that requires more open PRs would be candidates for collaborator status, which is not subject to the limit.

Notes

• The limit applies only to users without write access. Collaborators are not affected.
• We can start with 5 (or some other number based on consensus) and re-evaluate based on feedback.
• GitHub also provides a "bypass list" but we propose not using it to avoid the overhead of managing additions and removals.