I wish to add my gratitude for all the work Bob has done for us over the years. He was always tolerant of my ignorance and ineptitude and was kind when offering corrective advise. My regret is for taking too much of his time on things I should have figured out for myself. For this I sincerely apologize.
On the matter of consensus, I support Paul's list.
In the past I often felt that the PR reviews were authoritarian enforcement of an ever expanding set of rules. Even though at the time I knew they were not intended that way, I could not escape the impression these arbitrary requirements had to be met in order to get my code merged.
In fairness, there were several occasions when the reviews pointed out things that improved the quality of my code. However, more frequently, they often were expressions of style and preference.
But now, times have changed, I'm afraid the joys of 'code wins' are gone when JMRI was a playground to experiment with ideas and get the reactions of users in cycles of response and request.
Now JMRI is a brand, a product, that must meet the quality expectations of other brands and products; i.e. the NMRA, Kalmbach Media, Model Railroad manufacturers and a huge user community.
So I definitely support the use of peer review of PR's and I will pay much closer attention to the links under the 'Techniques and Standards' sidebar on the Developers page. But I think I will restrict my efforts to the repair and improvement of the current feature set.