I think there are certain things here that should go and things that should stay. Reviewers should not be afraid to reject code, changes should be tested. How

I think there are certain things here that should go and things that should stay. Reviewers should not be afraid to reject code, changes should be tested. However, there are both bureaucracy and code reviewing things that I would change here to not slow things down unnecessarily: - If the code practices document hasn't been updated, pending future changes shouldn't block your PR - You should never have any trouble finding someone to review your changes - the whole team should be empowered to review. - Strictly, only the lines you touch should need to follow any existing code practices, not the whole module because you happened to change one line. Otherwise people will be scared to do small fixes. - You should only be forced to write new tests for functionality you've actually added, for the same reason. As well as of course fixing tests you break with your code. - Don't even get me started on Ed not having access to Marge... - Why does this piece of work need to be done in the first place? Why would a backlog be limited to 3 months? TL;DR: There should only be as much bureaucracy & strict rules as strictly necessary. Unnecessary bureaucracy is the death of companies, large and small.