Standards Review Process

This document outlines the systematic process for reviewing, evaluating, and approving new standards or modifications to existing ones. This process ensures quality, consistency, and team alignment across all development practices.

🎯 Purpose

The review process serves to:

• Maintain Quality: Ensure all standards meet high quality and practicality standards
• Build Consensus: Gather input from relevant stakeholders before implementation
• Document Decisions: Keep clear records of why standards were adopted or rejected
• Enable Evolution: Provide a pathway for continuous improvement of our practices

👥 Roles and Responsibilities

Proposer

• Creates initial standards proposal using issue templates
• Responds to feedback and questions
• Updates proposal based on review input
• Implements approved changes to documentation

Reviewers

• Technical Reviewers: Evaluate feasibility, accuracy, and implementation details
• Editorial Reviewers: Ensure clarity, consistency, and adherence to style guides
• Domain Experts: Provide specialized knowledge for specific technology areas

Approvers

• Standards Maintainers: Final approval authority for standards adoption
• Team Leads: Approval for team-specific or project-specific standards
• Technical Architects: Approval for architectural or cross-cutting standards

Implementation Team

• Updates documentation and examples
• Communicates changes to relevant teams
• Provides training and support during rollout

📋 Review Workflow

Phase 1: Initial Proposal

Duration: 1-2 days

1. Proposer Actions:

   • Opens issue using "Standards Proposal" template
   • Provides clear problem statement and proposed solution
   • Tags relevant reviewers and stakeholders

2. Automatic Checks:

   • Issue template completeness validation
   • Assignment to appropriate project/team boards
   • Initial labeling based on scope and priority

Phase 2: Community Discussion

Duration: 1-2 weeks (depending on complexity)

1. Open Discussion Period:

   • Team members provide feedback and suggestions
   • Questions are raised and answered
   • Alternative approaches are considered

2. Proposal Refinement:

   • Proposer updates issue based on feedback
   • Additional context or examples are provided
   • Scope adjustments are made if necessary

3. Stakeholder Review:

   • Relevant team leads are notified
   • Domain experts are consulted
   • Impact assessment is conducted

Phase 3: Formal Review

Duration: 3-5 days

1. Technical Review:

   • Feasibility Assessment: Can this be realistically implemented?
   • Accuracy Verification: Are technical details correct?
   • Impact Analysis: What are the implementation costs and benefits?
   • Consistency Check: Does this align with existing standards?

2. Editorial Review:

   • Clarity Assessment: Is the proposal clearly written and understandable?
   • Completeness Check: Are all necessary details included?
   • Style Compliance: Does it follow our documentation standards?
   • Example Quality: Are examples clear, correct, and helpful?

Phase 4: Decision Making

Duration: 2-3 days

1. Review Consolidation:

   • All feedback is collected and summarized
   • Outstanding concerns are addressed
   • Final recommendation is prepared

2. Approval Decision:

   • Approved: Standard moves to implementation phase
   • Approved with Modifications: Changes required before implementation
   • Deferred: Needs more research or discussion
   • Rejected: Not suitable for adoption (with clear rationale)

Phase 5: Implementation

Duration: 1-2 weeks

1. Documentation Updates:

   • Create or update relevant documentation pages
   • Add examples and implementation guides
   • Update cross-references and related standards

2. Communication:

   • Announce new/updated standards to relevant teams
   • Provide migration guides if necessary
   • Schedule training sessions if needed

3. Rollout Support:

   • Monitor implementation across teams
   • Address questions and issues as they arise
   • Gather feedback on real-world usage

📊 Review Criteria

Technical Criteria

Feasibility (Required)

• Can be implemented with current tools and skills
• Doesn't create unreasonable technical debt
• Compatible with existing technology stack

Accuracy (Required)

• Technically correct and up-to-date
• Follows industry best practices
• Based on reliable sources and evidence

Impact Assessment (Required)

• Benefits clearly outweigh costs
• Addresses real problems or needs
• Doesn't negatively impact existing work

Quality Criteria

Clarity (Required)

• Easy to understand and follow
• Uses clear, unambiguous language
• Includes helpful examples and explanations

Completeness (Required)

• Covers all necessary aspects of the topic
• Addresses edge cases and exceptions
• Provides implementation guidance

Consistency (Required)

• Aligns with existing standards and practices
• Uses consistent terminology and style
• Doesn't conflict with other standards

Strategic Criteria

Alignment (Preferred)

• Supports team and organizational goals
• Fits within broader technology strategy
• Considers long-term implications

Adoption Potential (Preferred)

• Likely to be adopted by teams
• Doesn't require excessive training or tooling changes
• Has support from key stakeholders

⏱️ Timeline Expectations

Standard Timeline

Phase	Duration	Key Activities
Initial Proposal	1-2 days	Issue creation, template completion
Community Discussion	1-2 weeks	Feedback gathering, proposal refinement
Formal Review	3-5 days	Technical and editorial review
Decision Making	2-3 days	Approval decision and communication
Implementation	1-2 weeks	Documentation updates, rollout

Total Standard Timeline: 3-5 weeks

Expedited Timeline

For urgent or simple changes:

Phase	Duration	Key Activities
Fast-track Proposal	1 day	Issue creation with "urgent" label
Rapid Review	2-3 days	Accelerated review process
Quick Decision	1 day	Fast approval or rejection
Immediate Implementation	2-3 days	Priority documentation updates

Total Expedited Timeline: 1 week

Note: Expedited process requires approval from standards maintainers and should be used sparingly.

🚨 Escalation Process

When to Escalate

• Unresolved Disagreements: Technical or strategic disputes that can't be resolved through discussion
• Resource Constraints: Insufficient reviewer availability or expertise
• Timeline Issues: Delays that impact critical project deadlines
• Scope Creep: Proposals that grow beyond their original intended scope

Escalation Levels

Level 1: Team Lead Review

• Technical disagreements within a specific domain
• Resource allocation issues
• Priority conflicts

Level 2: Standards Committee

• Cross-team conflicts or dependencies
• Strategic alignment questions
• Major process changes

Level 3: Technical Architecture Board

• Architectural decisions with broad impact
• Technology strategy alignment
• Organization-wide standard adoption

Escalation Process

1. Document the Issue: Create clear summary of the disagreement or problem
2. Notify Stakeholders: Inform relevant parties of the escalation
3. Provide Context: Share all relevant background and previous discussions
4. Set Timeline: Establish deadline for escalation resolution
5. Communicate Decision: Share outcome and rationale with all stakeholders

📝 Decision Documentation

Required Documentation

For All Decisions:

• Final decision (approved/modified/deferred/rejected)
• Key factors that influenced the decision
• Names of reviewers and approvers
• Timeline of major review milestones

For Approved Standards:

• Implementation plan and timeline
• Communication plan for rollout
• Success criteria and metrics
• Rollback plan if needed

For Rejected Standards:

• Clear rationale for rejection
• Suggestions for future improvements
• Alternative approaches considered
• Feedback for the proposer

Documentation Storage

• GitHub Issues: Primary discussion and decision trail
• Standards Repository: Approved standards documentation
• Team Wiki: Implementation guides and training materials
• Meeting Notes: Records of committee discussions

🔄 Continuous Improvement

Process Feedback

Regular Reviews:

• Quarterly review of process effectiveness
• Analysis of approval/rejection patterns
• Timeline and resource utilization assessment

Stakeholder Feedback:

• Surveys of proposers and reviewers
• Team feedback on implemented standards
• Identification of process bottlenecks

Process Evolution

Metrics Tracking:

• Average review cycle time
• Approval/rejection rates
• Implementation success rates
• Team adoption rates

Process Updates:

• Regular updates to review criteria
• Timeline adjustments based on experience
• Tool and template improvements
• Training program updates

🛠️ Tools and Templates

GitHub Issue Templates

Standards Proposal Template (.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/standards-proposal.md)

name: Standards Proposal
about: Propose a new development standard or modify an existing one
title: '[STANDARD] Brief description'
labels: 'standards, needs-review'
assignees: 'standards-team'

Review Checklist Template

## Technical Review
- [ ] Feasibility assessed
- [ ] Accuracy verified
- [ ] Impact analyzed
- [ ] Consistency checked

## Editorial Review  
- [ ] Clarity confirmed
- [ ] Completeness verified
- [ ] Style compliance checked
- [ ] Examples validated

## Decision
- [ ] Approved / Approved with modifications / Deferred / Rejected
- [ ] Rationale documented
- [ ] Next steps defined

Labels and Project Boards

Issue Labels:

• standards - All standards-related issues
• needs-review - Awaiting review
• in-review - Currently being reviewed
• needs-modification - Requires changes before approval
• approved - Approved for implementation
• implementing - Currently being implemented
• completed - Implementation finished

Project Boards:

• Standards Pipeline: Tracks all proposals through review process
• Implementation Tracker: Monitors approved standards rollout
• Review Backlog: Manages reviewer workload and priorities

📚 Examples

Successful Review Example

Proposal: "Standardize React Component Testing Patterns"

1. Initial Proposal: Clear problem statement about inconsistent testing approaches
2. Community Discussion: 2 weeks of feedback from React developers across teams
3. Technical Review: Feasibility confirmed, examples validated
4. Editorial Review: Documentation style approved, examples clarified
5. Approval: Approved with minor modifications to testing library choices
6. Implementation: Documentation updated, training sessions conducted
7. Result: 85% adoption across React projects within 3 months

Review Modification Example

Proposal: "Mandatory TypeScript for All New Projects"

1. Initial Review: Technical feasibility confirmed
2. Stakeholder Feedback: Concerns raised about existing JavaScript projects
3. Modification Required: Scope reduced to "TypeScript for New Frontend Projects"
4. Re-review: Modified proposal approved
5. Implementation: Gradual rollout with team-specific guidance

🎯 Success Metrics

Process Efficiency

• Review Cycle Time: Target 3-4 weeks for standard reviews
• Reviewer Availability: Less than 2 day average response time
• Decision Quality: Less than 10% of approved standards require major revisions

Adoption Success

• Implementation Rate: Greater than 90% of approved standards fully implemented
• Team Adoption: Greater than 80% compliance within 6 months of rollout
• Feedback Score: Greater than 4.0/5.0 average satisfaction with new standards

Community Engagement

• Proposal Volume: Steady stream of community-driven proposals
• Review Participation: Diverse reviewer participation across teams
• Feedback Quality: Constructive, actionable feedback on proposals

---

This review process ensures that our development standards evolve thoughtfully and maintain high quality while fostering team collaboration and continuous improvement.