[r6rs-discuss] R5RS is not a baseline
owinebar at gmail.com
Fri Feb 20 05:51:59 EST 2009
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 7:44 PM, John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:
> William D Clinger scripsit:
> > The R6RS process showed little respect for backward
> > compatibility and prior art, and needed only a 60%
> > supermajority in a single vote to ratify a pair of
> > documents.
That's starting from a 100% rule. A more conservative move would have
been to 90%, to see if that was workable, then proceed from there as
Alternatively, the language standard is a constitutional document, not
a legislative one. High bars are normal - this is where minority
rights are protected.
If it is practical, a vote between alternative proposals is preferable
to a simple up or down vote.
More information about the r6rs-discuss