kaal:claim:4755632-022

Without crowd control the reviewer's views and the code author's intent are at odds, so a reviewer imposing their own logic can force repeated rewrites of code whose core functionality is already sound; a code review should instead focus on functionality and on keeping mistaken, badly constructed, and dangerous code out.

Instead, a code review should focus on the functionality of the code and on keeping mistaken, badly constructed, and dangerous code out.

Wulf A. Kaal, AI Learning - Decentralized Governance to Optimize Human Output Datasets for AI Learning (2024), Single Points of Failure, p. 35
https://ssrn.com/abstract=4755632 · source PDF

Wulf A. Kaal, AI Learning - Decentralized Governance to Optimize Human Output Datasets for AI Learning (2024). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4755632

• applies to legacy code review processes lacking crowd control

normativesupport: arguedfailure: Reviewer Logic Impositionfamily: board-and-oversight-failureopen-source-and-code

• extends kaal:claim:3995709-017 A code review should focus on the functionality of the code and on keeping mistaken, badly constructed, and da...
• extends kaal:claim:4734750-012 A code review should focus on the functionality of the code and on keeping mistaken, badly constructed, and da...

The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is 972ccebf0c06ac1767a9e443bb95942b7670e806a63c25ee817c368a64c8eca8. Extraction method: pdf-text-layer.
Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/760e936c9192c522...json
Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/4755632-022.md | sha256sum