I like this and have unconsciously used this when designing governance processes. I try to design so that people who like governing and code review are avoided

I like this and have unconsciously used this when designing governance processes. I try to design so that people who like governing and code review are avoided and people who hate it, are competent, and view it as a duty are favored. So always to avoid “professional governancers,” especially when people try to hire contractors to perform review as their incentive is to just burn time. I haven’t encountered a good simple metric. If I were designing a university (and I never would), I’d make admin a chore that professors are forced to do in addition to the real work. I’d make it some sort of only senior people can do it so there’s some prestige but is not fun. That way competent people are doing it, but they do it as busywork on top of their “real” work. There are some downsides to that and I think such a system is not stable as, naturally, smart people would get out of it [0] and eventually they would hire professional admins and everyone would avoid. [0] I read a story a few years ago how Feynman hated administration, https://www.quora.com/What-did-Richard-Feynman-think-of-academia https://www.quora.com/What-did-Richard-Feynman-think-of-acad..., so I got the idea to take on a very high profile admin task and ruin it so thoroughly and famously that my “brand” would be tagged with “never let prepend do administration and manage projects as ve will mess them up.” 30 more years until I know if it works. Fingers crossed.