[arc-discuss] ARC Community organization

[Darren Reed]

James Carlson wrote:

>Darren Reed writes:
>...
>  
>
>>To invent some numbers, if 60% of fast tracks are approved
>>without running to the full extent of their timeout, is that an
>>indication that:
>>a) the default timeout is too long
>>b) people are incorrectly filing things as fast tracks that should
>>   be closed/approved automatic
>>c) we're approving things too quickly
>>d) none of the above
>>    
>>
>
>I'd vote for:
>
>	(e) the process is working exactly as intended.
>
>  
>
>>>However, the ARC process is open, and it's the responsibility of
>>>everyone interested in architecture to watch the cases being reviewed.
>>>If you see one go by that you might be interested in, but can't review
>>>or comment right away, then (a) request more time and (b) specify some
>>>_reasonable_ date when you'll be able to provide comments.
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>I'm unclear as to why the latter half is required for a case that
>>will be closed/approved prematurely as surely the definition of
>>the process means that a "reasonable" date is the expiration
>>date, which is 7 days after the case is filed.
>>    
>>
>
>Because the ARC meeting itself is used as a checkpoint.  If you have
>any issues with any proposal that's before the ARC then _show up_.
>  
>

At some point  I remember becoming aware of the ARC meeting
being the checkpoint for fast tracks but I seem to have forgotten
that this was the case.

So your above point (e) stands.

Darren