[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Fwd: Feedback from implementors?
- To: scheme-reports@x
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] Fwd: Feedback from implementors?
- From: Denis Washington <denisw@x>
- Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:52:57 +0200
- In-reply-to: <20110816144705.GC8113@mercury.ccil.org>
- References: <20110816103609.GJ2309@frohike.homeunix.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CABpjPcLkFQXQQ=v_pm=QEQtaMPvYwKpNA6+qh9kj0HBmsBz_OQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAjq1mdwGEzB7-wKVkdr3T54KQMxC8Vv6K8ZNu9tzguyj=ZQMw@mail.gmail.com> <20110816144705.GC8113@mercury.ccil.org>
Am 16.08.2011 16:47, schrieb John Cowan:
> Grant Rettke scripsit:
>> From what I read there was a lot of outrage against the private
>> mailing lists that effected the R6RS standard.
>> Are there private mailing lists that effect the standard new standard
>> as well? :(
> (I apologize for the length and density of this reply, but I feel it's
> important to make the WGs' positions and behavior clear.)
> Emphatically no. There are private mailing lists for the two WGs, which
> are explicitly *not* for technical discussion. They have been used to
> discuss membership, infrastructure (the Trac-based system used by WG1
> and in part WG2), and in one case to raise a point of order. In toto
> there have been 41 messages posted to either private list, compared to
> 2424 messages posted to the WG1 public list and 254 posted to the WG2
> public list, some of which were crossposts.
> Nothing prevents the discussion of the draft by anyone in any venue.
> If any member of the WG becomes aware of an editorial issue, they may
> resolve it by directly editing the trunk or by filing an editorial
> ticket: *all* edits are reviewed by another WG member, generally Alex
> or me. Similarly, a WG member aware of a substantive issue may file
> a ticket for it, and it will wind up on a ballot. If the issue is
> discussed at all by the WG, it will be on the publicly readable mailing
> Alex sent all known Scheme implementers a version of the current
> trunk, basically the third draft plus editorial corrections. The
> scheme-implementors list is set up so that implementers who wish to
> comment on it or discuss it at this stage can do so without feeling that
> they must defend their decisions openly. What they say has a special
> interest, but no special authority: any criticisms must go through the
> process I just outlined.
> In short, the WGs are committed to the principle of open covenants
> openly arrived at.
Thank you for clarifying; I have replied a moment to early. I agree with
the WG's approach you outlined and applaud it for its openness.
Scheme-reports mailing list