Re: [Scheme-reports] formal comment: Using "scheme" for standard library is problematic

[Per Bothner <per@x>]

On 11/25/2012 09:44 PM, Arthur A. Gleckler wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Per Bothner <per@x
> <mailto:per@x>> wrote:
>
>     I can't find the definitions of Formal Comment vs Formal Objections.
>     I don't think this issue is a "charter violation  or otherwise
>     seriously threatens the ratification of the seventh draft."
>
>
> The best source is
> http://scheme-reports.org/2009/working-group-1-charter.html.

This says:

    Working group 1 must develop written specifications for the language.
    These specifications must be accompanied by concise statements of all
    formal comments and objections that have been raised by members of the
    working group or by the Scheme community at large.

However, there is nothing to suggest that formal comments have any
different timing or process from formal objections.  And nothing
to suggest that a formal objection should be a "charter violation
or otherwise seriously threatens the ratification of the seventh draft."

(Now I'm not going to "process nazi" and complain that you're
not following a well-formalized and -documented process.
Even though there are decisions I disagree with (obviously), and
perhaps there may be some arbitrariness in the process, I think
y'all have have gone a great job, and I much appreciate all the
time and effort you've put into it.  If I bring up last-minute
issues as I notice them, I apologize for not bring them up
sooner, and I won't be insistent about them.)
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@x   http://per.bothner.com/

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