What if leadership won’t enforce review SLAs?

Start with data. Publish current PR first-response latency by team and correlation with change failure rate. Pilot SLAs on one high-traffic repo and show the before/after. It’s hard to argue with a 30–50% reduction in lead time and fewer incidents.

We have compliance (SOX/PCI). Does this still work?

Yes. `CODEOWNERS`, required reviews, change windows, and evidence-based CABs make auditors happy. Store approvals in Git (not email), link RFC/ADR to changes, and use ArgoCD for auditable GitOps. Less manual ceremony, more traceability.

Our tests are flaky and slow—do we block merges anyway?

Don’t punish engineers with a broken gate. Triage flaky tests, quarantine them, and set a 72-hour SLA to fix. Split unit vs integration jobs and parallelize. Block on unit tests and critical integration paths first, then ratchet up as the suite stabilizes.

How do we handle AI-generated code safely in remote teams?

Treat AI like a junior pair: require tests, small diffs, and clear intent in PR descriptions. Add linters and static analysis tuned for common AI mistakes (unused vars, dead branches, subtle off-by-one). We’ve rescued teams from ‘vibe coding’ by enforcing coverage and policy checks before review.

We can’t align time zones—how do we avoid stalls?

Use follow-the-sun handoffs in PRs, an async RFC window (72 hours), and assign explicit reviewers across time zones in `CODEOWNERS`. For incidents, standardize update cadences and runbooks. Your process should not rely on one person being awake.

Culture · Nov 13, 2025 · 9 minute read

Remote-First Without the Quality Hangover: Rituals, Guardrails, and Metrics That Survive Time Zones

What actually works when your engineers are spread across five time zones and your code quality can’t depend on hallway drive-bys.

Back to all posts

Remote-First Without the Quality Hangover: Rituals, Guardrails, and Metrics That Survive Time Zones

Key takeaways

Implementation checklist