[r6rs-discuss] required explanations

From: AndrevanTonder <andre>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:02:26 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, John Nowak wrote:

> Those voting yes can do so easily without even reading the draft,
> while those that wanted to vote no had the pressure of publicly justifying
> their vote on technical grounds.

In hindsight, if the committee was looking to legitimize the adoption,
they probably made a mistake in requiring only "no" votes to be technically
justified. The inevitable appearance this has now created is that the opposing
votes were overall more informed than the confirming votes. (While this does
not have to be the case, I kind of suspect that it probably is.) In any case,
now, ironically, the draft will be ratified on the basis of a public document
containing almost no arguments in favor and a large body of documented and
reasoned arguments against.

Andre
Received on Fri Aug 17 2007 - 11:02:26 UTC