[r6rs-discuss] meta r6rs

From: Arthur A. Gleckler <arthur>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 00:50:13 -0700

On Jun 8, 2007, at 12:33 AM, Thomas Lord wrote:

> 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?

Sure they will. They just won't be able to call their
implementations "R6RS Scheme." After all, the code in the original
The Ultimate papers is still Scheme even though that variant was
never standardized.

> 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.

I interpret that requirement as a way to gather objections so that
changes can be made if the draft isn't ratified. That's perfectly
reasonable.

> 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.

I'd rather have a standard. I haven't yet decided how I'll vote, but
I'd rather at least have the chance of moving RnRS forward.
Received on Fri Jun 08 2007 - 03:50:13 UTC