> For an ARC fast-track under this new proposal we are actually only > asking for a minimum of "2 sets of eyes": > 1) the project team (which could be one person) > 2) the ARC case sponsor (which can be the same person) > 3) a +1 from another ARC member which isn't the sponsor or > the project team. > Is that really too much to ask ?
IMHO, Yes. It introduces too much process for an edge-case that doesn't need that much formality. It could be argues that the process I sent out that codifies "common sense" is also too much process, but recent events showed we needed it. I don't see anything that shows we need even more process here. What we *REALLY WANT* is that /every/ ARC member reads and understands every proposal. We get bonus points when those ARC Members are also project team members and/or sponsors, because we expect we will get higher quality proposals out of them. We don't want to discourage that. > All this proposal does is formalise some language to make > it easier for the case sponsor to know when they need to > step in and do something to keep the review moving Exactly. The intent is that ARC MEMBERS need to look at the case before they can make an informed decision to "not derail". The key is the change to the mantra: Has anyone reviewed this case? <<< ADDED Does anyone want more time? Does anyone want to derail? If not, then the case is approved. If the answer to the first question is "no", then the answers to the rest make no sense... -John
