> Socially this arrangement is kernel-like. The tech lead of the project runs the repo from which releases are done and merge in from teammates, which in turn can merge in from their teammates and so on. Ownership is always clear because the act of merging is also the act of taking responsibility. You can't get a tragedy of the commons where juniors keep picking other juniors to review their work like you can in more conventional free-for-alls.

I think the way you work is very interesting. We once discussed about having a process that is more kernel-like.

The fact that everyone has their own remote clone of the (or all) git repositories, does that not introduce overhead? We did that long time ago when we started with git, but thought it introduced extra overhead without any benefit. I assume you do it to make the ownership clear? And I also assume that everyone in your team is very comfortable with git? (yes, I do think developers should know their tools inside-out, but that is sadly rarely the case)

Can you explain in more detail the steps for a code review process? Is it the author that creates and deletes the review branch in the clone of the reviewer? How does the author know that the reviewer finished the review? Is it always the author who pushes his code to the technical lead for merge into master?