On 19 July 2018 at 20:44, Brett Cannon firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
But the amount of discussion can be unbounded (considering people write PhD theses on governance models and voting systems we could talk about this stuff forever ;), so putting a schedule in place to help focus the discussions can be beneficial.
I'm +1 on Mariatta's schedule. That gives people more than 2 months to come up with governance proposals and all of us to settle on how we will vote. And if we say the month of November will be when voting is open then that would give people more then 3 months notice of when the first vote will occur.
As long as we understand that the deadline is intended to help focus discussion, and not to pressure a premature or rushed decision, I think Maraiatta's schedule is fine. If, coming up to that date, people feel the need for more discussion/review, it should be easy to extend the timescale. I'd like to think no-one is going to demand an extension simply to delay the process, and conversely I assume that if someone *does* ask for an extension, that request would be treated with respect and consideration.
So while I think a concrete timescale will help focus the discussion, I don't think it should be viewed as set in stone (otherwise we'll just have yet another debate on what precise dates we should choose!)