[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [oleg@xxxxxxxxx: Interface view of dictionaries]
> From: "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+srfi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Indeed. I personally don't hold grudges, and I realize that
> defensiveness is a natural reaction to negative review comments, so I'm
> not going to hold any of this against Scott -- at least not in a "you
> suck!" way.
I hope that it's safe and accurate to say that "none of us will do
that -- just the very opposite."
What I'm trying to get across is that there's no reason for excessive
emotional investment here: the withdrawal procedure exists for
_exactly_ this kind of situation -- it _strengthens_ not weakens the
prospects of an eventual revised resubmission. I again point to the
history and references of SRFI-34 as a nice paradigm to follow.
I've read the proposed SRFI. I'm firmly on the side of the skeptics
-- it ain't ready for prime time. I'm not alone in that judgement.
What are the possibilities?
+ Scott's a troll, out to abuse the SRFI process.
Luckilly, the process is pretty robust wrt that. My intuition is
that Scott is _not_ a troll and, if he is, woo-hoo! he managed to
get a document archived somewhere while more serious people thought
a bit about the serious topic of collections.
+ The skeptics are just way wrong.
Maybe. The "meta-SRFI" idea isn't completely full of it. But at
the very least, the _very_ least, the SRFI process isn't intended
for "meta-SRFIs". So, withdrawal makes sense even so.
+ The skeptics are right-enough -- the proposal is withdrawn
We can all look forward to a much improved resubmission sometime
in the future.