John Plocher wrote:
> 3) If an ARC meeting happens in the time between a fasttrack
> submission and its timeout, the process can be short-circuited.
> The Chair and the members utter the following mantra:
>
> Has everyone had a chance to look at the case?
> If so, does anyone want more time?
> If not, does anyone want to derail?
> If not, the case is approved.
I wonder if this "short-circuit" path is still appropriate with the
wider audience of psarc-ext.
I think the "short-circuit" method has served us well and I'd like
to not loose it.
I'd like to hear if the -ext lurkers on psarc-ext have a problem
with the existing "short-circuit" path. Can it be too short for
psarc-ext?
I don't want to design anything here, particularly because there
may not be a problem with the current form. However, just to
give this a little more form, maybe ---
1) Leave it alone. Its not broken, don't fix it!
2) "short" can only be so short - say a fast-track must be "live"
for 48 hours (or 72, or 42 (THE answer), or 50:05:50 hours
or whatever). (Note: PSARC already does this informally,
bot its not an official duration.)
3) Non-members (-ext, whatever) can always ask "Let it run".
(This is a variant of "more time", but limited to the initial
time-out; to avoid "infinite appeal".)
You guys tell me. As a member, I'm happy with it the way it is.
It just seems that current process may not work for the broader
audience and we could easily tweak it. You tell me.
- jek3
