Re: [Scheme-reports] R7RS large process discussion WAS Re: final draft of the R7RS small language

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

Alex Shinn scripsit:

> This seems problematic - people are never really sure if they're
> working on a WG2 SRFI or not.  Although I think it's good to use the
> SRFI process it should be made clear that the SRFI is intended for
> WG2, which should draw a larger audience.

I have no problem with that, and have been doing it.

> I propose that for SRFIs intended to be included in WG2 the authors
> send an introduction message to the scheme-reports list making it
> clear it is intended for WG2,

I've been doing that too.

> and stating the motivation for including it in the large language.

What would this consist of?  Something should go in the large language
because it seems useful for practical Scheme programs.  That's a rather
generic answer.

> The default draft period in this case should be extended to 4 months
> (of course extendible so long as there is active discussion).

I have no desire to try to amend the SRFI process at this point.  In
practice, extensions have been easily achieved.  I really don't want
there to be too much time, such that all sense of momentum is lost.

> Announcements (including deadline reminders)
> for the SRFI should be cc'ed to the scheme-reports list.

I've been doing that.

-- 
John Cowan  cowan@x  http://ccil.org/~cowan
If I have seen farther than others, it is because I am surrounded by dwarves.
        --Murray Gell-Mann

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports