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

Hi, Tobias Schlitt wrote:

I don't beleive that extending the proposal time would help here. I 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. Any thoughts on that?

Yes, though you may not like them, as usual. On extending the proposal time: PEAR community is already large and diverse enough so that it is not necessary to wait that Special People turn their Attention to the lowly proposed packages. Besides, making it (maybe) easier for reviewers, it will make it more difficult for proposers --- the proposer may not have enough free time to finish the process at the end of the extended period and we'll have packages stuck in limbo. On QA team and PEAR group guidance: I don't yet see that QA team handles their existing chores well enough so giving them another right may be a bit premature. As for PEAR group, they already have veto right on packages, and besides most of its members are extremely busy. Conclusion: if the proposal is *indeed* premature, then votes should be either negative or conditional. There is no sense extending period / compicating process for all packages for fear that invalid ones may slip through. I doubt that anyone here *can* point at the package that slipped through.