I consider PRs to be primarily a defense of the architecture, and to a lesser degree a general sanity check. It’s also a useful opportunity to enforce automations are being run
If PRs are a notable part of my architecture defense, I'm going to work on investing in the team instead of reviewing PRs.
Nice way to avoid the responsibility for any team fuckup: it's not me, I only teach them, they decide themselves.
Welcome to the tech industry. Its all about shifting responsibility in case something goes wrong. Thats the only reason companies use third party software in the first place, to have a scapegoat...
But also, I must defend against the hordes of unwashed masses and maintain the sanctity of my domain. End of the day, a codebase I own is a codebase I own, and others cannot be allowed to poison the well, intentionally or not. That’s how you get cholera
I don't quite understand how someone in charge of a software (techlead or similar title) can't take this serious; I know a few such people and I generally prefer to avoid working with them...