Add a proposal for review process guidelines

CONTRIBUTING.md

@@ -9,3 +9,48 @@ Contributions to Student Robotics' Runbook should:
 [code-of conduct]: https://opsmanual.studentrobotics.org/about-the-charity/code-of-conduct
 [license]: ./LICENSE
 [contribution-guide]: docs/contributing.md
+
+## Review Process
+
+We should aim to keep review as lightweight as possible, with a bias towards
+getting content live over making it perfect.
+
+We do however want to review the content which is contributed for two reasons:
+
+* content that is substantially unclear or actually wrong will do more harm than
+  a lack of documentation
+
+* some of the content here covers sensitive topics such as safety measures at
+  events or safeguarding; it is especially important that documentation of these
+  areas is correct & clear, warranting more scrutiny
+
+The following protocol (in line with how GitHub describe these terms) is
+therefore proposed for review:
+
+* _Approval_ responses mean "this change can merge as is" but may include
+  additional suggestions. Contributors may reject these suggestions, but are
+  expected to respond to them before merging if that is the case. Discussion of
+  these suggestions may continue after the PR is merged.
+
+* _Comment_ responses are non-blocking, but also not approval, typically to ask
+  questions about the content or suggest improvements. Such responses may
+  indicate a review only of some part of the content.
+
+* _Request changes_: responses are blocking and indicate that changes are needed
+  before content can be merged. The review should indicate, either in the
+  summary comment or in the inline comments, which of the issues raised are
+  blocking. Such responses should be rare.
+
+In general reviewers are encouraged to bias in favour of merging unless they
+feel that the change is particularly sensitive or would be a net negative to the
+runbook.
+
+### Practicalities of Review
+
+* Please do choose reviewers when opening a PR, ideally by subject matter but if
+  in doubt pick one of the maintainers (@PeterJCLaw or @RealOrangeOne) and they
+  can redirect
+* Please do use GitHub's tooling to ask for re-review after changes
+* After review the contributor is typically responsible for performing the merge
+  themselves. New contributors (who may not have write access) should ping one
+  of the maintainers or reviewers to do this instead.