If dependencies are pinned until developers update them, you have massive security holes, because developers can't be trusted.
If you take the latest dependencies on every update, you have massive functional exposures (and security holes), because different developers can't be trusted.
If you have "community review", you create a new class of thankless work that nobody will want to do... except power-tripping control freaks who want to gatekeep over whatever their personal obsessions may be.
If users have to pick the versions, nothing will ever work, because users can't be trusted (and wouldn't want to do it anyway).
also companies may devote in-house resources to do it
best case IMO is that normalizing paid review leads to normalizing paid bugfixes / feature requests. people need to start thinking about what monetized github looks like
You think anyone will pay anything more than lip service to QA?
That's a good one.
This wouldn't be a complete thread without someone mentioning Rust, so I'll do it. cargo-crev is a nice web-of-trust type code review system for Rust crates. https://github.com/crev-dev/cargo-crev
real long-term solve here is a code review community for widely-used public packages I suspect?
am not a huge blockchain fan but this is one thing that blockchain could conceivably do well, because reviews are public, need to be authenticated, exist as compact metadata that can fit on chain, and benefit from public reputation dynamics