As an open source maintainer I used to have the impulse of asking for tiny changes before merging such as what this post is suggesting. The alternative is just

As an open source maintainer I used to have the impulse of asking for tiny changes before merging such as what this post is suggesting. The alternative is just accepting the change and immediately "fixing" it for you. The main reason I did this was to give contributors "credit" for their work. I wanted brilliant the lines of code you be attributed to you, not to me who accepted your PR but added a semicolon to the end to make it consistent with the coding style. But it seems people don't mind the core maintainers being janitors for them, and if they continue to contribute, following by example seems to work be better than being asked to on their first PR. The "cost" of this is delay, but more importantly I believe it dampens the intrinsic rewards that go with contributing to open source through Pull Requests. Specifically a chore component is introduced and depending on communications you may also feel reprimanded for opening an unpolished PR in the first place. What Danger does seem to do well is softening this communication portion for required steps. I believe the list is short (sign CLA, pass CI comes to mind) but I would caution and discourage other maintainers from using Danger to enforce an arbitrary rite of passage.