Establish best practices for code/PRs review

[yarikoptic]

E.g.

• OOS (out of scope) for the PR ideas should be filed in separate issues (in the same repo or generic https://github.com/dandi/dandi-infrastructure or https://github.com/dandi/helpdesk as pertinent) and cross-referenced instead of stated verbatim in the comments

related: #15 discussion

[yarikoptic]

good old issue brought up some relevant discussion recently. Before it disappears in the annals of slack, here some ideas:

• PR1: per discussion elsewhere I have agreed that **PRs in the dandi-archive should be merged by corresponding authors **. FYI: in dandi-cli it is primarily me or the author or could be anyone else on the team if it was approved but not merged.
• PR2: I would like to discuss now how comments on PRs should be handled. IMHO comment threads in the PRs should be marked resolved by the corresponding author of the comment, and not the author of the PR, unless they got stale and comment author did not follow up. The rationale: I find it difficult to find among (possible multitude of) resolved comments the one I want to follow up (and possibly even Unresolve) on because I (as comment author) do not consider it completely addressed. WDYT?
• PR3: IMHO commits (and ideally entire PRs) should not include unrelated to that commit/PR changes (beyond possibly obvious typo fixes if few etc) . It prohibits proper annotation of changes (as in commit/PR messages/descriptions), making it more difficult to review especially in restrospect (via git log and git blame)