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.
Anton van Straaten wrote: >>> 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 .... > Bradd W. Szonye wrote: >> In business, that's called "throwing good money after bad." In >> parenting, it's called "two wrongs don't make a right." > I don't think analogies are helpful here. Mea culpa; I tend to think in analogies. > But if it makes you happy: if you drive a car off the road, you have > to do some more offroad driving to get back on the road. Turns out > two wrongs *do* make a right, after all. Granted -- you may be right. >> I realize that you're trying to be tactful and diplomatic and offer a >> compromise here, but it won't help, because your compromise just >> undermines the process even more. > It wasn't intended as a compromise - it's an observation about what I > think is right. I'm not suggesting that the draft period be extended > indefinitely, only that the situation be dealt with fairly. I don't > accept that this undermines the process. Understood, and agreed. I wasn't trying to put pressure on the author, but I can see how it came across that way. Mainly, I'm a bit flustered, because I keep getting challenged to back up criticisms, even after explaining them in detail. I do this kind of stuff for a living, and in my ten years of experience as a reviewer, I've *never* seen an author get so defensive during a review. -- Bradd W. Szonye http://www.szonye.com/bradd