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.
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote: >> I agree that last-minute sabotage would be a bad thing. However, keep in >> mind that the SRFI process is about consensus. If it were just me >> arguing, no matter how vocally, I'd still recommend finalization (so >> long as the final version met the basic SRFI requirements, which the >> current draft does not). scgmille@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Not to be inflamatory, but the SRFI process is in part a response to > the unanimous RnRS process which severely restricts forward motion. > It is bad style to finalize an SRFI without concensus, but its hard to > say at this point whether we have a majority concensus. A majority is not consensus. > We have, so far, Oleg, myself, Taylor, and Matthias for continued > discussion towards correction of concrete issues, vs yourself, Tom, > and Ray against. This is why I want more opinions. I'm especially > wanting to hear informed opinions from implementors and respected > members of the Scheme community. Here's my opinion: Please withdraw this SRFI and re-present it when it actually conforms to the requirements for a SRFI. Please pay special attention to the requirement that outline implementations must be obvious to implement, and they must have a particularly compelling rationale. -- Bradd W. Szonye http://www.szonye.com/bradd