3,000 m
The architecture
Run it like a clinic, not a court
Most architecture review boards fail the same way. The agenda is long, the slide decks are longer, and the decision arrives three weeks after the team needed it. So teams learn to route around the board, present work that is already built, and treat approval as a formality. The board still meets every fortnight. It just stops governing anything, and everyone quietly knows it. The real decisions move to corridors and chat threads, where nobody writes them down.
A board people actually attend works more like a clinic. Submissions are a single page: the problem, the options considered, the recommendation and what it would cost to reverse. Anything one architect can decide is decided by one architect. The board only sees decisions that cross domains, create new patterns or carry risk the organisation has to own. Most weeks that is two or three items, which is exactly enough. Everything else goes back to the team with a thumbs up and a link to the standard.
Then write every decision down where people can find it, in the same place and the same format, with a date and a named owner. A decision log engineers can search is worth more than a perfect meeting. When the same question comes back six months later, the answer is a link rather than another hour in a room, and the board earns back a little more trust each time. Nobody attends a meeting out of love. They attend because it is the fastest way to get an answer.
