If every dev was equally responsible or thorough, we would be fine with just 1 reviewer. But the reality is that devs are different, and can have good/bad days.

If every dev was equally responsible or thorough, we would be fine with just 1 reviewer. But the reality is that devs are different, and can have good/bad days. Operationally, in every mission-critical workflow, usually at least 2 people need to turn the key, fly the airplane, press the button, sign off, or what have you. There is good historic precedent for distributing responsibility and reducing errors. > If you have three reviewers, no one feels personally responsible for checking it line by line and thinking about the code in depth. in my experience, this is already happening. When you get pinged to review PR after PR and have your own work to do, it's easy to skim. Requiring 2 reviewers operationally has often meant i'd get a chance to look and take a deep dive after someone caught the glaring issues. When it's ok for just one dev to sign-off, time and time again that's how i've seen bugs/debt sneak in. I think giving organizations this option is only a plus, and is not really something we need to have a public debate about; it's an organizational decision to use or not use this that github has facilitated.