Re: [Fenfire-dev] Jodi article, deadlines

[Benja Fallenstein]

Tuomas Lukka wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 02:00:04PM +0300, Benja Fallenstein wrote:
> > How about an additional policy: if we don't have a *first* draft, with 
> > all the sections filled with text but too shabby to send around, e.g. 
> > vital explanations missing etc., one week before we want to send around 
> > (i.e., 3w before deadline), we just forget about it?
> >
> > This would have helped e.g. with this article, I think, where what we 
> > had when submitting was first-draft quality in many places.
>
> I think this might be too strict; just "french lines" (i.e. bullet points)
> should be enough for a first draft.

Well, I think that we should have a deadline for the first draft with 
text, so that there is enough time after it to explain the things that 
weren't clear in the first draft.

I.e., I want to have time to *polish*.

> And the time should be flexible:
> how about "We shall *seriously consider* whether we can make it".

I think having the other policy more flexible would be less of a problem 
than having this one more flexible-- I don't want to 'seriously 
consider' and then get into deadline panic again =)

- Benja