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

[Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>]

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:34 AM, John Cowan <cowan@x> wrote:

In the end, we don't vote on a proposal for inclusion unless (a)
we have a SRFI in hand, and (b) we have voted to add the proposal to
StandardDocket (or it's been added by unanimous consent procedure to
either StandardDocket or ConsentDocket).  But the order in which those
things happen is not important.

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 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,

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

The default draft period in this case should be extended to

4 months (of course extendible so long as there is active

discussion).  Announcements (including deadline reminders)

for the SRFI should be cc'ed to the scheme-reports list.

This is of course no guarantee that said SRFI will be

accepted in WG2, but it makes the intent clearer and

should increase scrutiny and consequently the

acceptance rate.

-- 

Alex

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