The Author notifies the moderator that a review should be scheduled, and distributes paper copies of the design or code to be reviewed. The author answers the reviewers' questions during the review meeting, and afterward documents how each identified defect was corrected or addressed. It is the author's responsibility to partition larger projects into segments that can each be reviewed within the time constraints for each review. They review the design or code in advance, though it is best to limit preparation to roughly 2 hours per review meeting. During the meeting, the reviewers should stick to technical issues and practice proper review etiquette.
Most programmers can be successful reviewers with little additional training.
A significant point is that management must not participate directly in the reviews. For the process to succeed, the authors must not perceive the review as an open forum on their abilities or performance. The purpose of the reviews is to improve product quality, and the presence of management at the review undermines that purpose. Managers should demonstrate commitment to the process by not letting schedule pressures shortcut or otherwise cripple the review policy. The point is to distribute responsibility for the product to the review team, not just the author, and to reward the quality of the review and the product as corrected by the review.