Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > A bit of back history: In the case of 448, there were three members that > gave it a +1, in addition to the case sponsor, so I didn't see much risk > in going ahead and approving it. (Four full members reviewing the case > is pretty thorough, IMO.) In the case of 2009/430, that case did get > pushed through rather quickly with somewhat less review. (Although I did > ask the question about directory vs. file certs -- and got what I thought > was a reasonable answer -- before I +1'd the case.)
Sure; I don't want to overburden the process, but giving the rest of the community some time to voice their expertise would be not only polite, but essential in some cases. As long as a case can be reopened within its original timeout, though, this is mostly a matter of politeness. > Would two business days be sufficient time to allow folks to chime in > who need to? Two full ones, probably so. At least, I think that brings it back to historical norms, though I'm sure some folks would like more time than that. Monday evening to Wednesday morning, though, isn't enough. Danek
