Based on the responses I have seen to date, I'm not prepared to schedule PaceDeclareVictoryOnFormat just quite yet.
However, I do believe that it might be worth considering a small change to the process.
The current process is that from the pool of a few dozen paces, I select up to a dozen or so to discuss, and after a while, a few get closed, a less get accepted, and the rest are sent back to the pool. Meanwhile, a few new paces get authored.
Net result is approximately a steady state. That's not in the working group's best interests.
Things I don't want to do:
* Put a moratorium on new paces
* Establish a "three strikes and you are out" rule for paces
* Eliminate the possibility of reopening issues
So... the process change I would like to propose is that we focus on reducing the amount of Paces that simply get thrown back to languish. And my proposal is simple: in order for a scheduled Pace to be sent back, at group of people - including at least one detractor - volunteer to work on producing a version that they can live with.
Fair enough?
- Sam Ruby
