MDL-39214, Martin Dougiamas declared:
If you don't like it: file a new policy issue with other options.
In some cases, the procedure proposed in
MDL-39214 (HQ will decide) has been demonstrably ineffective - HQ has made no decision, or even commented.
Therefore an extension / revision of that procedure is needed.
I propose the following "other option" as an extension of that procedure. If HQ has decided that the issue is not important enough to respond within 90 days, the relevant component maintainer (or whoever has the ability to implement a decision) shall be empowered to do so. As an example, Tim Hunt is Quiz maintainer, so if HQ isn't interested in an issue regarding Quiz, as evidenced by no response from them for 90 days, Tim would make the decision. If there's a policy question about activity completion and HQ doesn't care, Sam Marshall should decide.
Precedent can be found in the Constitutions of the US and Canada. In the US example:
If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a Law, in like manner as if he had signed it
Another organization has successfully implemented this concept for many years using the phrasing "every service responsibility should be matched by an equal service authority".
Two points might be worth clarification:
a) Who decides, if HQ chooses not to?: The person who has the de facto ability to implement a choice, because they are doing the work of implementing it. "He who does the thing decides how it's done", if HQ or other relevant leaders do not object.
b) Component maintainers and similar leadership positions should (not may) make needed decisions.