Why the 'we' if 'we' aren't going to do it, but I am? I've had one interesting/productive 6 month engagement with a team where there were some of these comment

Why the 'we' if 'we' aren't going to do it, but I am? I've had one interesting/productive 6 month engagement with a team where there were some of these comments, but sometimes... someone would actually just make the change in the branch. It saved time, let them get things "the way they wanted" and was generally agreeable to most on the team. Someone making a change in 'my' branch wasn't an affront - it was a degree of collaboration. It was almost always preceded with a message of "hey, I see a small issue here - I'm gonna throw a small patch on it - let me call you after to discuss" or followed up with "hey - fyi - I saw a small bug and did a small patch/test - do you have a few minutes to talk at 3 about it?" And... I would do the same with them, when warranted. It cut down on the delays and let people "take ownership". In the 'wrong hands', I'm sure it could get politically ugly, but no more so than a lot of passive-aggressive comments and blocking/nitpick stuff that holds things up unnecessarily. One thing that was expected (and made it easier) was that whenever you did that (formal or informal review) you were expected to have pulled the code, installed/run the tests locally, run the code, and verified tests ran before you pushed anything back. A note saying "this doesn't seem right" carries different weight from someone giving it a 2 minute glance vs someone who's actually run that code and seen what you've seen. Yes, I know that often you can spot issues without running the code, but... not always (or, if you see the totality of the code in-situ, vs just diffs, you have more context).