kaal:claim:3995709-013

In hierarchical legacy review processes the first reviewer's output gets the highest priority and follow on reviewers add only minor upgrades, so the collective of reviewers is not incentivized to find flaws and optimize the code as a collective work product.

often gets the highest priority and is often merely followed with minor upgrades by follow-on reviewers. The collective of reviewers is also not incentivized to find flaws in the code to optimize code as a work product of the collective.

Wulf A. Kaal, How DAOs Optimize Open-Source Code Reviews and Create Open-Source Standards (2021), Flawed Code Review Process, p. 12
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3995709 · source PDF

Wulf A. Kaal, How DAOs Optimize Open-Source Code Reviews and Create Open-Source Standards (2021). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3995709

• legacy code review firms
• hierarchical ordering of reviewers

mechanismsupport: arguedfailure: first reviewer anchoring in hierarchical reviewfamily: governance-participation-collapseinstitutional-designrisk-and-incentives

• restated_by kaal:claim:4734750-008 In hierarchical review, the first reviewer's output receives the highest priority and later reviewers add only...
• restated_by kaal:claim:4755632-019 The collective of reviewers in legacy code review is not incentivized to find flaws in the code, because the r...
• extended_by kaal:claim:4734750-010 Hierarchical code review undermines long-term participation by reviewers at the edges of the reviewer spectrum...

The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is 6d77dbfb15ee86080bfde0b98089180cabafeb6defdf0f05eaaeb3cb99871e89. Extraction method: pdf-text-layer.
Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/0268229c3670bf84...json
Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3995709-013.md | sha256sum