Working Mode: clarify that major changes warrant additional time

[annevk]

Closes #98.

[travisleithead]

With my community participant hat on, even with 7 days of delay before merging, I might still miss a major change unless there was some sort of alert that I should go take a look, with a summary of what major thing was changing. I don't think there's anything that suggests this be done--is it something we should consider?

[annevk]

I think this is mainly for those that actively participate in the development. Note that it also does not account for vacation and such. And it's still a judgment call. E.g., if the editor determines the relevant people have chimed in, merging earlier can be okay. Furthermore, I'd still expect decisions to be subject to appeal if there's new relevant information.

[travisleithead]

Furthermore, I'd still expect decisions to be subject to appeal if there's new relevant information.

The wording makes it seem like appeals are only limited to the window of 7 days.

I'm also concerned about the suggestion of 7 days becoming a rule; wondering if we can make this wording more vague.

[othermaciej]

Vagueness avoids the problem of anchoring on 7 days, which may sometimes not be enough. But is "some more time" too vague? Perhaps it should be "significantly more time"?

[annevk]

I think current practice would be "some more time" (though sometimes could be significant if review is tricky or requires many cycles) and I was mainly trying to codify that.

[foolip]

How about "some more time (typically a week or more)"? That still leaves room for less if the editor is confident nobody is going to mind.

[annevk]

I've made those changes. Let me know what you think!

[foolip]

@dbaron @othermaciej can you also approve?