[r6rs-discuss] My Vote, reconsidered

[David Van Horn]

For what it is worth, again.

I have spent the past couple of days listening to my peers, reading
discussion archives, and re-evaluating my position on who would
contribute positively to the Steering Committee [1].  I have revised
my votes to the following:

    1) Olin Shivers
    2) Kent Dybvig
    3) Anton van Straaten
    4) Michael Sperber

It is important to me that the steering committee understand and
foster the research viability of Scheme.  I believe that research and
PhD students are what make language progress and innovation a reality.
The four candidates I selected understand the issues involved.

I also think it is important that the committee have the resources to
devote to the task.

Finally, and this is the criteria which is largely responsible for my
change in perspective, it is important to me that the committee be
open minded and willing to listen.

Olin Shivers I support for the reasons I listed before, but also
because he has demonstrated the ability to foster constructive
compromise.  See the SRFI 1 discussion archive for evidence of this.
Shivers was largely absent from R6RS.  He is coming in unbiased by the
R6 process.

Kent Dybvig I support for the reasons I listed before, but also
because he successfully weathered the R6RS process and maintained a
level of decorum that I think is above and beyond what many others
involved in the process have demonstrated, both those who saw R6RS
through and those who resigned.  I appreciate that.  Respect and
compromise are vital to making progress with Scheme.

Anton van Straaten represents a perspective outside of academia, which
I do think is important to balance the committee.  He became involved
late in the R6RS process, based on the judgement of the current
committee, which I respect.  He has consistently been a voice of
reason.  I have appreciated his nomination statement and his comments
in this forum.

Michael Sperber and I have worked together for close to five years as
fellow SRFI editors.  It has been a pleasure working with him.  I
value Sperber's perspective and his technical contributions to the
language.  In fact, the only reason I left him off of my initial list
is because I would rather see him working in the capacity of an
editor.  (And I do think these roles should be mutually exclusive).  I
have included him here in my list because if elected to the steering
committee, at least he would have the option of resigning to join the
editor's committee.

I sincerely welcome feedback on my position.  What I have received so
far has been remarkably helpful.

David

[1] http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/2009-February/003837.html