RE: PAC: Suggested language for CS 6

["Karl Best" <kfbest@earthlink.net>]

Tommie says:
> I'm concerned about the premiss here; all of our work on this activity has
> been based on the assumption that we are designing a process for a large
> number of TCs, and that the process will not be tweaked after it is in
> place.  None of us knows for sure if this assumption is valid, but we're
> living with it.
>
> If we are to accept this "lets do it one way until it becomes inconvenient
> and then revisit" suggestion I think we should revisit most of the
> decisions the committee has made.  Most of the process we are drafting is
> overkill at this time!

It's certainly not my place as a latecomer to suggest starting over on
everything. But if there's a way to accomodate both the current level of
activity as well as possible future large numbers I think we should do it.

> I am also concerned about compressing the review time to 60 days.  This
> really isn't long enough for people who are busy doing other
> things to take
> a good hard look at something new and see if they have problems with it.

Would it be of any value for us to decide upon a length of time that we
think is reasonable for a complete cycle, and work backwards to see how we
can fit it all in? (Or maybe that's what I've already done.)

Or perhaps we can stick with the lengths of time that we were already
working with, but do something other than starting a cycle every calender
quarter; that seems to be the cause of all the worst case scenarios.

</karl>