Well, 60 might still be a bit much, and R3 has already been rated almost halfway through, so I think it makes sense to finish that one. But yeah, I also wouldn't mind if round 4 was dropped.
Maybe after R3 has been rated, simply use the current ICS rating to determine the 15 winners of R4, and instead of suspending the losers, simply schedule them for later releases.
I know, I know, there's simply too many requests and some of the better ones have to "die", we had that discussion already and I understand and agree with the reasoning behind it.
The only problem I have with that is: Several of the current DFD participants are both a) much more popular according to the ICS and b) at least look like they'd be easier to implement than many requests that have already been either scheduled or assigned.
Example: Let's assume in R4 "Ammo= on weapons" and "aircraft-specific reload times" would have to fight each other.
Both are in the Top 15 of ICS, both are rather straightforward and - at least to my amateurish eyes - don't seem to be too problematic to implement (at least ac-specific reload).
At the same time, there are multiple issues assigned and/or scheduled that have little to no support so far, and others that have some support (but still less than those two) but sound MUCH more complicated.
So I fully understand the need to keep the amount of requests on a tolerable level, but it would be frustrating to see one of the 'gems' of DFD lose and get suspended when some other features that barely anyone cares about are going to be implemented only because they were lucky enough to get assigned and/or scheduled before DFD started.
Even if we proceed as planned, the losers of R4 (and probably some losers of previous rounds as well) would probably be re-opened or receive multiple duplicate requests somewhere in the future anyway, so in the long run the result will probably be more or less the same, and by dropping R4 we could further reduce the amount of time spent on DFD.
Well, as always, this is only my opinion/suggestion