[r6rs-discuss] required explanations

AndrevanTonder andre at het.brown.edu
Fri Aug 17 11:02:26 EDT 2007

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, John Nowak wrote:

> 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.

In hindsight, if the committee was looking to legitimize the adoption,
they probably made a mistake in requiring only "no" votes to be technically 
justified.  The inevitable appearance this has now created is that the opposing 
votes were overall more informed than the confirming votes.  (While this does 
not have to be the case, I kind of suspect that it probably is.)  In any case, 
now, ironically, the draft will be ratified on the basis of a public document 
containing almost no arguments in favor and a large body of documented and 
reasoned arguments against.


More information about the r6rs-discuss mailing list