Personally, I definitely don’t think this is the right way to think about it.
First, we’re overwhelmed with unreviewed PRs. We’re understaffed. We need her more than she needs us 
So it doesn’t make sense to vote for someone based on how much they need the commit bit.
And second, in CPython’s culture right now, the commit bit is much more than just the commit bit. It’s a mark of acceptance, it’s an invitation to participate in committers-only discussions, it’s a ticket to attend the annual sprint and language summit, it’s required to bring PEPs forward for discussion, it’s the right to participate in governance decisions… and conversely, rejecting someone as a core dev sends the message that they aren’t welcome in those discussions, whether or not that’s what we intend. So it doesn’t make sense to base this decision on commits alone.
Since I became a core dev I haven’t made many commits, so if the criteria is based on committing then I probably don’t qualify. But I’d still like to think that I’ve contributed in worthy-enough ways. For example, if I wasn’t a core dev I wouldn’t be allowed to participate in this conversation.