Preparing a Review: Package, Agenda, Participants
What This Concept Is
A review is shaped before it starts. Three ingredients decide whether it will produce a decision or a second meeting:
- Package. What reviewers read in advance. Draft ADR, one or two diagrams, relevant constraints, the question(s) the review must answer.
- Agenda. A time-boxed list of questions, not topics. "Is the two-way-door classification correct?" beats "Discuss reversibility."
- Participants. The smallest set of people who together have the authority to decide. Anyone further is a cc, not a required attendee.
A review with a package but no agenda becomes a reading group. One with participants but no package becomes a guessing game. All three have to exist.
Why It Matters Here
Review cost compounds. Ten people at a one-hour unprepared review is ten person-hours to produce nothing durable. The same ten hours split as one hour of preparation plus a focused 30-minute meeting with three required attendees produces an ADR.
Preparation is also a filter. Any proposal that cannot be summarized into a reviewable package is probably not ready for review.
Concrete Example
Subject: Review: ADR-0044 - Event bus transport choice
Pre-read (10 min):
- draft ADR-0044 (Nygard, 1 page)
- context diagram: current + proposed
- one-page summary of the cost model
Participants (required to decide):
- author (platform team)
- on-call lead from orders service (affected consumer)
- ops lead (operational burden)
Optional (cc only):
- analytics lead
- security reviewer (signed off async, absent)
Agenda (45 min):
- (5 min) Author states the problem in their own words. No slides.
- (10 min) Reviewers ask clarifying questions, no evaluation yet.
- (15 min) Walk the three concrete scenarios in the ADR. Disagreements are captured in writing as we go.
- (10 min) Decide: accept, reject, or defer with specific followups.
- (5 min) Author updates the ADR live; the group reads what was written before ending.
Expected output: an ADR in Accepted status, or a dated followup list with owners.
Common Confusion / Misconception
"Send a long pre-read to set context." A pre-read over 10 minutes will not be read. A short pre-read will. Write to the length that will actually be consumed.
"Everyone affected should attend." Affected is not the same as decision-necessary. Wide attendance dilutes accountability. Use explicit "required / optional / cc" labels.
"No agenda - let's see where it goes." Where it goes is nowhere. An agenda is one page; writing it is 10 minutes; it saves multiples of that in the room.
"ADR bureaucracy." Preparation is not bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is holding a review where nothing gets decided and no artifact is produced. Preparation is the thing that prevents that.
How To Use It
As the author:
- Draft the ADR to load-bearing state first. If Consequences is empty, you are not ready.
- Reduce the pre-read to one page plus at most two diagrams.
- Pick the smallest decision-necessary participant set. Label everyone else cc.
- Write the agenda as 3-5 questions.
- Send the package at least 24 hours before the meeting. If that is impossible, postpone the meeting.
As a facilitator (may or may not be the author):
- Confirm the question the review must answer. If participants disagree on the question, stop and fix that first.
- Hold time for each agenda item. Capture disagreements as they happen.
- End with the ADR updated, not with a promise to update it later.
Check Yourself
- What is the minimum package for a review? What can you drop without harm? What can you not?
- Why does "discuss" beat "decide" as an agenda verb approximately zero percent of the time?
- Name one stakeholder who should almost always be cc and not required for an architecture review, and defend it.
Mini Drill or Application
For an upcoming review, prepare:
- a one-page pre-read (the draft ADR plus context)
- an explicit participant list with required / optional / cc labels
- an agenda of 3-5 questions with time boxes
- an expected output statement ("at the end of this meeting, the ADR will be Accepted or Rejected")
Send it. Note who actually reads the pre-read versus who shows up cold. This is data for calibrating future reviews.