Not enough clear expectations on quality and timing of spec and panel reviews

[justinwb]

We're seeing cases both on individual panels and also on solid/specification where there isn't clear definition from the process on when a given pull request can be merged, or the expected quality of that merge based on where it is in the the lifecycle.

Specifically:

• Simple changes shouldn't require too much process, or seemingly "side-step" the process
• When things are are in the drafting process, and the draft is still incomplete, there should be a premium on getting feedback in a timely fashion, to advance completion of the draft. Fuller and more in-depth review should always happen when a draft is complete and ready for them.
• There should be some general protections against having things stagnate without receiving timely review
• These expectations should be clear for both panel and solid/specification reviews.

[justinwb]

Note that @csarven has proposed some ideas to address these issues.

[justinwb]

Renamed this to distinguish from website concerns (#217/#222).

Ah yes this is really something quite different, and wasn't meant to be taken in the same context. A couple of examples are solid/authorization-panel#84 and solid/data-interoperability-panel#57, where we have drafts that are in-progress and incomplete, but we want quick and timely review that can be factored into the next batch of work already underway.