[r6rs-discuss] meta r6rs

From: Thomas Lord <lord>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 00:33:19 -0700

Arthur A. Gleckler wrote:
> I hope that we'll keep the process going just as it is. If R6RS is
> not, in fact, ratified, it can still be submitted as an SRFI, or as a
> set of SRFIs. But let's let at least give the process a chance.
> Many people, most of all the editors, have put a lot of good effort
> into R6RS. Even if not everyone agrees with the editors on everything
> in the document, we owe them at least the courtesy of voting for or
> against ratification.
>


I appreciate the sentiment in that but there is a problem.

It seems fairly clear that if R6 is ratified, even if a majority have
voted "yes", it will be over the strong objections of at least several
Schemers. That group will no longer be able to legitimately call their
implementations "Scheme," etc. What good comes of that?

It also seems clear that the R6 vote is biased in favor of "yes". For
example, a "no" vote requires some sort of explanation be given, while a
"yes" vote does not.

And so, the process seems designed just to marginalize those who dissent
from the draft.

How about this compromise:

The process is slightly modified so that both yes and no votes require a
rationale. The draft is *not* ratified, regardless of the outcome.
If the steering committee so choses, they publish a SRFI of the draft,
and publish the N comments on that draft -- each comment a forward of a
"yes" or "no" vote, along with its rationale.

In that compromise, the community at large would be honoring the hard
work and good work that you refer to -- yet the political and economic
tensions would be smoothed out.

-t
Received on Fri Jun 08 2007 - 03:33:19 UTC