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.
Tom Lord wrote: > > From: "Anton van Straaten" <anton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > It seems to me if there's going to be major contesting starting > > at this late stage, there's a case for having some substantive > > discussion about it before simply withdrawing the SRFI. > > Otherwise, a precedent is created in which the SRFI process can > > be sabotaged by sustained last-minute attacks. > > > Do you think that such sabotage is what's going on here? I have no way to know, and that wasn't my point. My inclination is to give people the benefit of the doubt, on both sides. My point is that even if that's not what's happening here, a hasty withdrawal under pressure now would provide a clear strategy for such attempts in future: just keep quiet till the end of the draft period and suddenly raise a bunch of objections. Bonus points if a few other people can be persuaded to jump in on your side. Of course, it could be argued the other way that allowing the draft period to be greatly extended is also a poor precedent for the SRFI process. That's probably true. However, this SRFI was already way over the alloted draft period. I don't know the history of that - if there's a procedural problem, it should have been addressed a long time ago. But it doesn't make much sense to me to suddenly start calling for withdrawal, based partly on the fact that the rules have already been allowed to be stretched, for reasons unrelated to the current objections. I think the entire debate would be more fruitful if the word "withdrawal" were used with a lot more restraint, at least for a while, and some time is spent discussing the merits of the SRFI itself and the issues that have been raised, rather than whether or not it should be withdrawn. I think we all "get" that some people are in favor of having it withdrawn. Continued calls for withdrawal, even with the goal of subsequent resubmission, unnecessarily complicate the discussion. Much has been made of the rules of the SRFI process, but as open as it is, I think it depends on the exercise of a certain amount of good will on all sides. Blindly insisting on imposing rules which have already been stretched doesn't seem to qualify, to me. Anton