[r6rs-discuss] r6rs-discuss Digest, Vol 30, Issue 15

[Bradley Lucier]

On Feb 19, 2009, at 6:23 PM, r6rs-discuss-request at lists.r6rs.org wrote:

> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:19:06 -0500
> From: Matthias Felleisen <matthias at ccs.neu.edu>
> Subject: Re: [r6rs-discuss] R5RS is not a baseline
> To: r6rs-discuss at lists.r6rs.org
> Message-ID: <E3BBF9E1-A7A0-4D92-89DB-6E1A8E78C129 at ccs.neu.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>
> On Feb 19, 2009, at 4:31 PM, r6rs-discuss-request at lists.r6rs.org  
> wrote:
>
>> It sounds like some people are afraid that some	of
>> the changes made in the R6RS wouldn't be supported
>> by 75%, so they'd prefer to regard the 65% who voted
>> to ratify the R6RS as the ultimate arbiters.
>
>
> 1. What super-duper majority do people need to accept that a vote has
> been decided?
>
> 2. I don't think the word 'baseline' should be taken as
> 'unmodifiable, every feature stays.' Instead, I can see a voting
> procedure. If 60% of voters wish to remove a feature, it should go
> away. Or something like that.
>
> 3. Baseline means that you don't repeat all the discussions for all
> the changes. You focus on the bad parts and leave the good parts  
> alone.
>
> -- Matthias

I don't think we want a steering committee consisting of members who  
either (a) want to tear down R6RS and start over or (b) have so much  
invested in R6RS that they want to make it super-difficult to remove  
features from it it after we've had some experience with all the new  
things in it.

I think the previous steering committee did a good job, I think many  
of the current candidates have too much invested one way or the other  
with respect to the current standard to be good steering committee  
members.  I also think that one can choose a good committee from  
among the candidates that are running.

Brad