[r6rs-discuss] Which Schemes?

[Grant Rettke]

On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Aaron W. Hsu<arcfide at sacrideo.us> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:56:50 -0400, Joe Marshall <jmarshall at alum.mit.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, and this is the problem I'm hoping to understand and hoping that I
>> can help
>> R7 avoid.  We won't get a complete consensus on what goes in to R7, but
>> I *hope* we can get all the `big names' aboard, and that if we do, it
>> will be
>> of benefit to the community.
>
> I believe that the reason we didn't get consensus is because we actually
> wanted it. I know, don't laugh. But really, you *don't* get the Scheme
> community to agree, and that's not necessarily a bad thing for many areas.
> The majority of disagreement comes from either a few well known,
> underlying semantic issues, or at the per-library issue. PLT Scheme is
> fundamentally different in its goals and approach to problems than is Chez
> Scheme, despite them having some overlap in some areas and interfaces.
> Others are the same way. It is going to be very very hard to get
> *everyone* to do agree to one way of thinking. It's just anti-Scheme. We
> can however, have localized consensus in specific domains, and I think
> that's what we should focus on: getting consensus on specific areas; let's
> avoid, for the moment, the issue of wide overarching consensus.
>
> Maybe later, general consensus on things can be reached, but I argue for
> an incremental approach to reaching this. No need to push the community
> where they aren't ready to go.

By that logic, then, nothing really needs to change does it? The only
people who will suffer are the WG2 bunch.