Re: [Scheme-reports] voting has ended

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

will@x scripsit:

> The vote is now complete.  The unofficial tally (according to my count
> of names listed at http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/PlebisciteIndex )
> is 56 for and 7 against, but 2 of the yes votes were conditional.
> 
> About 85.7% of the votes cast were unconditionally yes.  If the two
> conditional yes votes were counted as yes, the percentage would rise
> to about 88.9%.  Both of those percentages exceed the 85% threshold
> mentioned in the WG1 charter.

~~ big sigh of relief ~~

> The Scheme Language Steering Committee does not yet have any official
> announcements to make, but I'd suggest WG1 proceed by assuming the
> SLSC will ask WG1 to consider all specific issues raised during the
> voting period ( http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/PlebisciteObjections )
> and to prepare one more draft R7RS that incorporates WG1's best effort
> to resolve those specific issues.

The editors have looked at the list and come to the conclusion that the
draft should be changed for the following tickets:

    #478 "Procedure equivalence should return" per the unanimous
    WG vote;

    #479 "Character names like 'xbeef' can be read two ways" as an
    editorial matter;

    #507 "R6RS/R7RS incompatibility of bytevector-copy! procedure"
    as an editorial matter, given that the originator believes the
    draft version is correct.

These changes have been made in the repository and reviewed by
the editors, along with other editorial changes enumerated at
<http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/NinthDraftEditorialCorrections>.

The editors have also recommended that the WG take no action on
tickets #480-#536.  Aaron Hsu has agreed to this in respect of the
tickets #503, #510, and #512-#519, which are drawn from his ballot.
If the WG agrees, I will poll the originators of the remaining tickets
by email to determine whether they are satisfied with this resolution
and update PlebisciteObjections accordingly.

--
Your worships will perhaps be thinking          John Cowan
that it is an easy thing to blow up a dog?      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
[Or] to write a book?
    --Don Quixote, Introduction                 cowan@x

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