Re: Slowing down Pepr? at least 1 month between proposal/votes

Alan Knowles wrote:

I just had a look at the proposal for Image_Graphpite, while an interesting and good package, it has gone * First Draft: 2004-08-30 * Proposal: 2004-08-30 * Call for Votes: 2004-09-07 That's an 8 day review?

8 day distributed review seems reasonable to me. You seem to affirm it is obviously unreasonable. Care to ellaborate a bit?

- The first comment asked if it could be added / work with Image_Graph. This would be an ideal solution, but is not going to be feasible to evalutate in 8 days. It would be far better if the authors of Image_Graph had managed to make a comment. - did they wish to merge their work into Image_Graphpite, and call the merged one Image_Graph.. (or visa-versa)

I was one of the devs who reviewed the package. It is a much larger package than Image_Graph. I guess a compatibility layer between both is feasible, bot downright integration is comparable to a rewrite.

Unfortunatly we know from experience that 1 month is often not enough time for comments.

I'd prefer a concept like quiescence: At least one week open, and at least three days with no comments. From my experience, long deadlines are ignored, and people only feel the urge to contribute when something definitive is looming over them.

If someone is willing to commit years of future maintanance to a package, then waiting an extra month before going to votes is perhaps a small inconvenience worth going through. Regards Alan

Cheers, Sérgio

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc