Horizontal review

[cwilso]

"using consistent horizontal review" is a specific methodology, not a value. (per @fantasai )

[cwilso]

I agree that consistent horizontal review is a specific methodology, not a value. That's why it appears as an operational principle - operationally, we will use consistent review, to ensure broad goals in our values of a11y, i18n, etc. I think this is proper as written.

[frivoal]

I think the sentence is reasonable, but the title bugs me a little. What's important about HR is not that it's consistent: you could get consistent review by doing no review at all every time, or just checking for spelling mistakes every time…

Maybe:

• "Deliberate Review": we don't just let anybody review (though we do that do), but we have a intentional plan to review the document on some specific criteria.
• "Cross-Functional Review": calling out that experts from various functions or disciplines participate in the assessment.
• "Interdisciplinary Review": idem
• "In-Depth Review": Emphasizing the depth of examination that goes beyond a surface-level review.
• "Thorough Review": idem

In all cases, Review could be swapped for "Analysis", "Scrutiny", "Evaluation", "Assessment"

You can also take more than one adjective. E.g. "Deliberate Interdisciplinary Scrutiny"…

[dwsinger]

how about "widely and publicly reviewed"?

[frivoal]

that's not the same though. Horizontal review is a component of wide review, but that particular component is not particularly well described by "wide" or "public".

[dwsinger]

I think that widely when paired with publicly like this does imply a wide internal review, and a wide internal review would imply getting input from those in other groups and disciplines. It's a mission statement, not a formal definition.