Evening David,

>I wouldn't for example support a system which looked like.
>'We are now in the problem discussion phase which will last for a
>minimum of one week.  After which time a Problem Statement will be
>produced' 

I don't believe that the problem is solved by placing more requirements on proposers or more opportunities for the Policy-SIG chairs to 'enforce' policies.  

I believe that the problem can be solved by giving proposers more opportunities to consult with the community before bringing a fully fledged proposal to the table.  As such I have always resisted stating how long or short the steps should be.

I agree with you that there will be times when a direct policy proposal may seem like the best course of action.  I would suggest however, that if the proposer hasn't correctly gauged the feeling of the community, then no matter how urgent the need, those proposals never seem to gain consensus.

I do like your suggestion that this may be a detour that the Policy-SIG chair chooses to put proposals through if they consider it does not have a well defined or supported problem statement.  At the end of the day it is up to the Policy-SIG chair if he/she is willing to accept a policy proposal, it's not a matter of right.  This would allow he/she the right to say:

"I don't think your proposal has a well defined or widely accepted problem statement.  Please discuss this on the list and we can look at you resubmitting."

Thoughts?