"timeout" [Re: changes are needed, we need keep moving]

[Pekka Savola]

Request for clarification: what _timeout_ are we talking about here? 
The earlier documentation had some timeouts for RHL72/RHL73 and 
RHL8/RHL9 but those no longer apply.

Are we just talking about the time at maximum which it should take 
from getting a VERIFY vote to ensuring Status whiteboard has been 
updated?  I don't think that could be called a timeout..

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Marc Deslauriers wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 13:44 -0500, Eric Rostetter wrote:
>> I'm not against the timeout, in fact there is supposed to be a timeout
>> in the process, though I don't remember what it is.  Perhaps we need to
>> revisit the timeout issue, with the goal of putting someone in charge of
>> watching the packages for timeout conditions.  Right now, no one is AFAIK
>> watching for such situations, so even if something had multiple verify votes
>> and has stalled, no one notices and pushes it out.  Seems like another
>> essential job waiting to be filled.
>
> I agree to the timeout. Let's decide on this list what that timeout
> should be and I'll watch for it.

[in later mails the agreement seemed to be that 2 weeks was OK]

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings