The current process puts responsibility on the core developer who
commits a change. Personally, I don't think it is bad if this breaks
the build on some buildbot, I only this it is bad if the committer
doesn't care. This worked out pretty well in the past, I think. I only
run the head version of wireshark and can usually build it (thanks to the Mac OS X buildbots).
If a core developer didn't want to take responsibility for a patch, he
could contact others to get feedback on questions. This also worked in
the past since you contacted people who also are interested in the subject.
I'm generally satisfied with the quality of trunk and I'm proud to be part of the project.
I also think if we could break trunk even less often, it would be even better and Gerrit would help that and would
also help discussing the patches.
The same responsibility applies for changes being compiled by the
buildbots. Each such change comes from a core developer. I'm
hesitating to allow an arbitrary patch to compile on the buildbots
where we have no one being responsible for it in any way. Some of the
buildbots run older software, some of them are not hardened in any way.
If all the buildbots are running a newly cloned VM and limits network usage of the VM, I think we can be safe.