Julian Reschke wrote:
James Graham wrote:
...
The decision making process in the charter specifically documents how
to break that cycle. The first requirement is to demonstrate that
there is a need to do so.
...
I think it was pretty clear that there was a need to.
The discussion had been going on for a long time, and there was no
visible progress on it. So it appears to me that the chairs were right
in trying to get progress on this issue.
In this case the feedback cycle looked like this
Initial draft -- Lots and lots of feedback -- New draft including @headers --
More feedback
It's not clear to me why making a decision now before the second "redraft" stage
of the cycle makes sense. It would make more sense if the editor had made a
change, people were still unhappy, but felt that they had already presented all
their arguments. If there is a real need to speed up the redrafing of this
section, I think it is possible to ask the editor to prioritize it; as far as I
am aware that has not occurred.
--
"Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?"
-- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
