[r6rs-discuss] required explanations

[Thomas Lord]

John Nowak wrote:
> I would just like to briefly express my intense irritation that an explanation was required only for "no" votes. Those voting yes can do so easily without even reading the draft, while those that wanted to vote no had the pressure of publicly justifying their vote on technical grounds. I would not be surprised if there are many that would have voted "no" in the same way many voted "yes" if a coherent explanation wasn't required.
>
> Requiring explanations either way would have been a start. Requiring explanations for neither would have been the proper way to do it. The only way in which the system used might have been reasonable would have been if the electorate were smaller and precisely chosen. As it is now, there are many people voting yes without any hint either in their explanations (or lack thereof) or in mailing list posts that they've even read the thing. What a joke!
>
>   


And it only passed by 7 votes out of 100, too.

I hope there is an invariant whether it is officially ratified or not:  
end of process;  take it to the SRFI world.

-t