Simon Peyton Jones
| The limited discussion period was a suggestion that entered the process | only rather late as a suggestion from Richard (or least my interpretation | thereof). The hope is that it makes things a bit more manageable by | keeping the number of proposals at the focus of the communities attention | small. Authors are of course able to continue working with collaborators | to hone their proposals outside of the discussion phase, but we want to | avoid having idle proposals accumulate over time.
OK. I propose that we change this. Remove the four-week language. Instead:
* At any time the author of a proposal can transition from "Discussion" to "Decision", by changing the status of the proposal [link to explain how], and by sending email to the committee to signal the change.
The author should do this only when there has been adequate opportunity for the community to respond to the proposal. It would be unusual to consider adequate any period less than four weeks from the last substantial change to the proposal. But this is not a hard and fast rule. It's the intent that matters.
* Any proposal in "Discussion" that has had no input for more than four weeks may be moved "Dormant" status (by anyone). The goal here is simply to keep manageable the list of proposals that are being actively worked on. The author is free to resurrect it to "Discussion" status.
Yes, this sounds reasonable. I can rework the language in the documentation and send an announcement if there are no objections. Cheers, - Ben