This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 1 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 1 are here. Eventually, the entire history will be moved there, including any new messages.
Olin Shivers <shivers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > What do people think? Issuing a new SRFI is certainly correct wrt. modelling the process on the RFC process. I would like to see the inconsistency fixed in the direction of consistency with map &cet. If it takes a new SRFI, do it, even with 'wait-a-year'. OTOH, there's no reason why we just can't create an amendment process for SRFIs either. It's our process and as long as it gets documented, who cares? I would prefer to see SRFI-1 fixed w/out a new number; tracking through the threads of obsoleted RFCs has become mighty tedious over the years. Who would need to be convinced to make it happen? Should this discussion (having a SRFI amendment process) go back to c.l.s? david rush -- X-Windows: It was hard to write; it should be hard to use. -- Jamie Zawinski