[r6rs-discuss] Implementors' intentions concerning R6RS

From: Thomas Lord <lord>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:35:35 -0700

Chris Hanson wrote:
> Granted, this standard has generated more than its share of bad feeling.
> I think that's due to some fumbling in the way the committees were set
> up and run, which led to a lot of people feeling excluded or
> marginalized. There was (and is, apparently) serious lack of open
> discussion about overall goals and how to achieve them. The process was
> poorly managed and consequently became dominated by strong personalities
> rather than a spirit of compromise. And far too much of the process was
> handled behind the scenes, although towards the end there was some
> significant opening up. The late transparency didn't help very much,
> since by then there were already serious problems, and it was much too
> late to fix them.
>


All in all, in other words: not bad for a first outing.

-t

(And as you say, wouldn't be good for a second one!)
Received on Wed Oct 31 2007 - 01:35:35 UTC