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

Hi Daniel Convissor! On 09/10/2004 07:10 PM you wrote:

Hi Toby:

I thought you were on vacation? :)

I am! :) And I'm using the time to dig through all those mailinglists finally...

On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 11:18:56PM -0400, Tobias Schlitt wrote:

would suggest to enable the QA team and the PEAR group to reset a proposal to the stage "Proposal" if it's necessary. Another way would be to disable the proposer to switch to C4V and to leave this step to the QA/group.

I was pondering ideas along these lines as well. Perhaps allow QA/group to block a proposal from going to voting if necessary. Also, provide QA/group the ability to extend the time for votes.

I still think these should be in addition to extending the time periods.

There is no real sense in that. Usually it should be clear that a proposal must not get into voting phase if not all issues have been cleared up. If that still happens, this should usually have been punished with conditional or -1 votes. This case is (and hopefully) will be very rare, so could be handled by QA. I still consider another idea, having a QA member "guiding" a proposal. This means, that a QA member takes the proposer by his hand once he handed in a draft and is ready to put it into review. Then a QA member reviews the draft and clear open issues before he moves the draft into proposal stage. Only if all issues have been cleared, the QA guide moves the proposal to vote stage. This process would have some more benefits, since issues like "cvs import" and "please delete cvs directory" can be filtered, too. Comments? Regards, Toby -- Tobias Schlitt GPG Key: 0xA6529579 a passion for php http://www.schlitt.info Like to say "thank you"? - http://pear.php.net/wishlist.php/toby