# kaal:claim:3995709-016

**Claim.** Without crowd controls, the reviewer's views and the author's intent are at odds and the reviewer can impose their own logic, forcing the author to rewrite functionally sound code repeatedly, which is highly time consuming and inefficient.

**Type.** failure  **Support.** argued

**Holds when.**

- legacy code review processes lacking crowd control

**Source quote.**

> Because the code reviewer may wish to impose their own logic on the code author, the code author may be required to rewrite code over and over even though the core functionality of the code is sound and dangerous issues were controlled for. This can be highly time consuming and inefficient.

**From.** Wulf A. Kaal, *How DAOs Optimize Open-Source Code Reviews and Create Open-Source Standards* (2021), Lack of Crowd Controls, page 13

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

**Verify.** sha256 of source PDF `6d77dbfb15ee86080bfde0b98089180cabafeb6defdf0f05eaaeb3cb99871e89` at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wulfkaal/Academic-Papers/main/papers/pdf/Kaal%20-%202021%20-%20How%20DAOs%20Optimize%20Open-Source%20Code%20Reviews%20and%20Create%20Open-Source%20Standards.pdf

**Failure mode.** absence of crowd controls over reviewer preference  (family: agency-cost-and-managerial-opportunism)

**Topics.** economics

**Keywords.** crowd-controls, reviewer-discretion, review-inefficiency, failure-mode

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of the claim. Its sha256 is the content hash used for attestation.