[ispeters]

A compelling post. Something it doesn't mention that I immediately wonder about is how you ensure the decision to escalate from "a quick DM" to a "full business case review" (or whatever) isn't unreasonably biased.

If everyone is working with good intent then this doesn't matter. But the real world is full of unconscious 'isms so I suspect there's a risk that underrepresented folks are more likely to trip the extra process flag and thereby get slowed down disproportionately, leading to negative feedback loops.

[wakamoleguy]

That's a really good question. This may also end up depending on the level of trust within the team. One thing I didn't call out is that an "optional gate" can still just be checked by sending a DM, like "Hey, do you think I need this check on this project?" So in high trust teams the differences are small.

On lower trust teams, I could see the cycle you mention crop up more. I'm not sure of the answer, but I don't think it is to force everybody through the onerous process out of perceived fairness. Any ideas on how to bring visibility to that failure mode?

[ispeters]

I think trust is important, yes. Self awareness is, too—sometimes it's enough for the gatekeeper to stop and ask themselves if they've checked their biases. Another tool is for the metagatekeeper to periodically review the gatekeeper's decisions; the metagatekeeper can be the next level up of management, or it could be a set of peers who check each other.

However you do it, it's a matter of "who watches the watchers?"