I think there is a fine but meaninful distinction to be made here: One can (and IMHO should) require code reviews for each change, but not be the person to actu

I think there is a fine but meaninful distinction to be made here: One can (and IMHO should) require code reviews for each change, but not be the person to actually do the code review. If every code review needs to go through you, then you become a bottleneck. This means that you need to trust members of the team to do solid reviews, and you focus on observing the team's processes and debugging problems like: - We don't have clarity on what our conventions look like. - People take too long to review others' code and it blocks the team. - People get interrupted by code reviews too frequently and it keeps them from focusing deeply. - We are missing some piece of build/test infrastructure and it isn't clear to any one person that she should take 3 days to do that longer-term investment work. - We don't have a clear way to onboard newer team members into our frontend toolchain and so it takes them a long time to get productive. - There is a process people are following which is just getting in the way and can be slimmed down or eliminated.