# Changes-Requested Policy

**URL:** <https://tosdr.community/t/changes-requested-policy/221>\
**Category:** Phoenix\
**Created:** [October 25, 2020, 4:01pm UTC](https://tosdr.community/t/changes-requested-policy/221 "2020-10-25T16:01:29Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 7\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dr\_Jeff](https://tosdr.community/user_avatar/tosdr.community/dr_jeff/32/2728_2.png) [@Dr\_Jeff](https://tosdr.community/u/Dr_Jeff)\
**Post date:** [October 25, 2020, 4:01pm UTC](https://tosdr.community/t/changes-requested-policy/221/1 "2020-10-25T16:01:30Z")

</div>

I believe we are all familiar with many services on the [Phoenix Site](https://edit.tosdr.org) filled with points with `changes-requested`, and lots of them are very old, deprecated or from deactivated accounts, which ultimately just becomes _ **clutter** _.

My suggestion is that we should employ a new `rule/policy` such that a user’s point with _changes-requested_ has a limited time to get changed, and _ **if untouched after such time frame passes** _, either it switches automatically to `declined` or curators are authorised to decline them manually.

Of course we could discuss the idea itself, the time frame to give, and whatever else might pop up your head.

# So, what do you think?

_Poll ([view on site](https://tosdr.community/t/changes-requested-policy/221/1))_

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Peepo](https://tosdr.community/user_avatar/tosdr.community/peepo/32/7_2.png) [@Peepo](https://tosdr.community/u/Peepo)\
**Post date:** [October 26, 2020, 7:09pm UTC](https://tosdr.community/t/changes-requested-policy/221/2 "2020-10-26T19:09:12Z")

</div>

I agree, what usually happens is that the person never comes back to change them. It would be a lot easier when approving a site if the changes-requested were declined because it opens that case to be used again since we don’t want duplicates. Maybe 6 months is a good cutoff date?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dr\_Jeff](https://tosdr.community/user_avatar/tosdr.community/dr_jeff/32/2728_2.png) [@Dr\_Jeff](https://tosdr.community/u/Dr_Jeff)\
**Post date:** [October 30, 2020, 7:47pm UTC](https://tosdr.community/t/changes-requested-policy/221/3 "2020-10-30T19:47:56Z")

</div>

I believe 6 months is a bit of a stretch. Usually people are eager to see a Service reviewed soon. Maybe 2 months?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Arlo](https://tosdr.community/user_avatar/tosdr.community/arlo/32/24_2.png) [@Arlo](https://tosdr.community/u/Arlo)\
**Post date:** [November 7, 2020, 8:47pm UTC](https://tosdr.community/t/changes-requested-policy/221/4 "2020-11-07T20:47:43Z")

</div>

Two months sounds good to me.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![michielbdejong](https://tosdr.community/user_avatar/tosdr.community/michielbdejong/32/2528_2.png) [@michielbdejong](https://tosdr.community/u/michielbdejong)\
**Post date:** [November 23, 2020, 7:41pm UTC](https://tosdr.community/t/changes-requested-policy/221/5 "2020-11-23T19:41:08Z")

</div>

Sure! Sounds good to me.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![justin](https://tosdr.community/user_avatar/tosdr.community/justin/32/1657_2.png) [@justin](https://tosdr.community/u/justin)\
**Post date:** [February 6, 2021, 3:54am UTC](https://tosdr.community/t/changes-requested-policy/221/6 "2021-02-06T03:54:57Z")

</div>

This has been implemented now.

> <https://github.com/tosdr/edit.tosdr.org/blob/39ed2c15da7d0ca3269e6930b114e4483290c134/lib/tasks/points.rake#L1-L34>

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![justin](https://tosdr.community/user_avatar/tosdr.community/justin/32/1657_2.png) [@justin](https://tosdr.community/u/justin)\
**Post date:** [February 6, 2021, 5:00am UTC](https://tosdr.community/t/changes-requested-policy/221/7 "2021-02-06T05:00:06Z")

</div>