Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#24433: doc: Explain that feedback needs to be addressed

fa694f6 doc: Explain that feedback needs to be addressed (MarcoFalke)
fa0819e doc: Move peer-review paragraph to right section (MarcoFalke)
fa2b65b doc: Add link to release-process.md in CONTRIBUTING.md (MarcoFalke)

Pull request description:

  Generally, the pull request author is expected to reply to all comments or iterate the code before merge. Of course, it is allowed to reject feedback, but it should not be done by silently ignoring it.

  Clarify this in the docs.

  Also, some minor copy edits.

ACKs for top commit:
  michaelfolkson:
    ACK fa694f6
  Sjors:
    ACK fa694f6
  jamesob:
    ACK bitcoin/bitcoin@fa694f6
  prayank23:
    ACK bitcoin/bitcoin@fa694f6
  brunoerg:
    ACK fa694f6
  w0xlt:
    ACK fa694f6

Tree-SHA512: 339d6f252395664442f4bfb73d839314de8c9b0fdc8900a1c4a67b1cef9c73ecb98c7587a842dd5a36a4a3efbd8270d2162962013893706313f7ef34491db18c

Author: fanquake

CONTRIBUTING.md

@@ -12,8 +12,8 @@ revolves around a meritocracy where contributors earn trust from the developer
 community over time. Nevertheless, some hierarchy is necessary for practical
 purposes. As such, there are repository "maintainers" who are responsible for
 merging pull requests, as well as a "lead maintainer" who is responsible for the
-release cycle as well as overall merging, moderation and appointment of
-maintainers.
+[release cycle](/doc/release-process.md) as well as overall merging, moderation
+and appointment of maintainers.
 
 Getting Started
 ---------------
@@ -189,9 +189,14 @@ in the body of the pull request to indicate tasks are pending.
 
 At this stage, one should expect comments and review from other contributors. You
 can add more commits to your pull request by committing them locally and pushing
-to your fork until you have satisfied all feedback.
+to your fork.
 
-Note: Code review is a burdensome but important part of the development process, and as such, certain types of pull requests are rejected. In general, if the **improvements** do not warrant the **review effort** required, the PR has a high chance of being rejected. It is up to the PR author to convince the reviewers that the changes warrant the review effort, and if reviewers are "Concept NACK'ing" the PR, the author may need to present arguments and/or do research backing their suggested changes.
+You are expected to reply to any review comments before your pull request is
+merged. You may update the code or reject the feedback if you do not agree with
+it, but you should express so in a reply. If there is outstanding feedback and
+you are not actively working on it, your pull request may be closed.
+
+Please refer to the [peer review](#peer-review) section below for more details.
 
 ### Squashing Commits
 
@@ -322,6 +327,14 @@ maintainers take into account the peer review when determining if there is
 consensus to merge a pull request (remember that discussions may have been
 spread out over GitHub, mailing list and IRC discussions).
 
+Code review is a burdensome but important part of the development process, and
+as such, certain types of pull requests are rejected. In general, if the
+**improvements** do not warrant the **review effort** required, the PR has a
+high chance of being rejected. It is up to the PR author to convince the
+reviewers that the changes warrant the review effort, and if reviewers are
+"Concept NACK'ing" the PR, the author may need to present arguments and/or do
+research backing their suggested changes.
+
 #### Conceptual Review
 
 A review can be a conceptual review, where the reviewer leaves a comment
@@ -422,11 +435,6 @@ https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16189).
 Also see the [backport.py script](
 https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-maintainer-tools#backport).
 
-Release Policy
---------------
-
-The project leader is the release manager for each Bitcoin Core release.
-
 Copyright
 ---------