This is the correct answer.
While I appreciate the desire to lock this down (so to speak) we’ve seen in the past that having rules that are too strict can cause more harm than good.
The general rule is that the Governance Facilitators (note this is not limited to GovAlpha facilitators) determine the contents of the weekly governance cycle (which includes the executive vote) and allow other mandated actors veto + inclusion rights within their domain of expertise.
Someone needs to make this determination, because there is often not a ‘correct’ answer - stuff gets delayed, governance can vote for conflicting outcomes, urgent / emergency processes displace non-urgent and non-emergency processes. This is true even if you attempt to implement fixed rules because there will always be a situation that breaks them, and in that situation some entity / group needs to have the authority to decide how to move forward.
That said, I’m aware of the issues that ambiguity can cause as well, which is why each poll contains an outcomes section that clearly explains what the outcome should be to MKR Holders. If that outcome is not met, then they can and should make an issue of it.
In this case the outcomes section reads:
Note that the 30 day clause was specifically added because at some point in the past, an outcome had stated ‘this will be included in the next executive’ and due to some combination of circumstances that wasn’t possible - so I adjusted the default outcome text to allow us more flexibility in the future.
TL;DR: Flexibility is good in this case. If a Governance Facilitator is viewed as malicious due to the misuse of this flexibility, they should be removed as soon as possible.