Another thought about the feature process: I suppose you could look at quality as a concept driving the feature process, and quality is what dictates having an acceptance bar. Because if you’re not going to make any judgment on quality, then really, anything goes.
This might, to some, beg the question of putting the cart before the horse, but I’d say it’s more of a chicken and egg problem. A call for better quality goes out, a system emerges to fill that need. Simply having that system, any system, leads to more energy, whether through friction or impulse. (That’s a lot of metaphors for one paragraph.)
The feature process itself has fortunately had people willing to work on it, take input, improve it, and get traction. If some argue that the process has its flaws, I’ll certainly agree (as would everyone who works on it, I imagine). But better to have lopsided growth than stagnation. Concrete suggestions for correcting said growth patterns is cheerfully accepted, as John Poelstra pointed out earlier.