[Council] consistency of review periods

[Dave Cridland]

Since I'm still subscribed (which is a good thing, incidentally), I  
thought I'd chip in on this one. I'm assuming I can't post, though  
I've copied in the list as a simple way of getting the comments back  
there if deemed useful.

On Tue Mar  9 13:05:14 2010, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> I think we might also need to specify objection periods. For  
> example:
> you have two weeks to vote on a XEP and if you vote -1 you have two
> weeks after the end of the voting period to clearly specify your
> objections, preferably with suggested fixes. If you don't do that  
> within
> two weeks, your vote is automatically changed to 0. Currently, a -1  
> vote
> can be used as a permanent block, and that's just wrong.

I think there's an onus present on the document author, too - if the  
author can't work up the energy to contact the council member to  
clarify the problems, that doesn't suggest there's much energy to fix  
whatever problems there are, either.

This reminds me that there was a discussion about encouraging (or  
requiring) document authors to be present in the Council meetings -  
I'm still very much in favour of that, and it'd hopefully mean that  
the veto usage is better understood and resolved.

Finally, I'd note that not all problems *can* be resolved - indeed,  
these are the problems that really ought to be handled by Council in  
Council, rather than handled beforehand by discussion on the lists.

Just my increasingly objective viewpoint on this. :-)

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade