This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 44 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 44 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
> 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+ The skeptics are right-enough -- the proposal is withdrawn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.
-t