>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."