This is a worthy cause, but I am skeptical. For one thing author has neglected engineering debt - it's far too easy for me to add features by sacrificing code q

This is a worthy cause, but I am skeptical. For one thing author has neglected engineering debt - it's far too easy for me to add features by sacrificing code quality or worse yet design quality (even adhering to the coding standards). There should be a way to measure engineering debt and take into account. One idea I have here is that a piece of code should have an owner that has incentive to keep code in good order, and that owner would accept money from developer who is making changes to compensate for the damage - if a change requires two week to cleanup a smart code owner would charge 2.2 weeks, thus coming out ahead and providing incentive for the developer to do a better job. But then the problem is that each piece of code becomes a monopoly with extortionist prices. There are two ways to deal with monopolies - regulate their prices or introduce competition (by direct action if needed). The other problem is that this may get quite expensive. Why should a business pay more when it could pay less? Nevertheless it would be interesting if somebody tried this.