[Ratification-discuss] *Cough*

[Thomas Lord]

Alan Bawden wrote:
> So this list has been public for at least a week now.  We don't seem to be
> accumulating any more subscribers at this point.  So if anybody has any
> feedback to offer, now would be a good time to deliver it.
>
> But if y'all just signed up to see if anybody -else- was going to say
> anything, that's cool too.  Even though this is a mailing list it isn't
> mandatory to start an argument...
>   


For lots of reasons, talk of ratification at this stage seems to me 
premature.

Amidst all the noise on the discussion list are, in my opinion, some deep
issues that merit extended consideration.   Yet, in the discussions, the
editors are (understandably) studiously reserved.   I feel like things are
a bit rushed.

On the other hand, many of the improvements in the draft surely need
to be somehow agreed upon and sanctified -- at least it would be reasonable
to do so.   For example, I think that several implementors of influential
implementations would benefit.

So, here is a suggestion:  how about inventing a new status for documents
that falls between SRFIs and RnRS?   We could call this "STCS", pronounced
"sticks", for "Standard Track Consensuses for Scheme".   STCS would
differ from SRFIs in these ways:

1. The right to contribute to the STCS process would be limited and
two-tier.   Tier 1 is commentators who can contribute to discussion of
any STCS document.   Tier 2 is voters.   As with the proposed ratification
process, a statement of interest must be presented to and accepted by the
R6RS editors for either tier.   Membership in either tier should require
periodic renewal, to cope with voluntary and involuntary attrition.

2. Any tier-2 STCS participant can put forward a new document which
should represent content and/or strategic direction and/or aggregation of
STCS documents into union documents for the next RnRS.

3. Each tier-2 member has one vote per STCS.   There should be provisions
for changing one's vote, freezing voting on a STCS document, and thawing
voting on a STCS document.   Votes should be viewable in a number of ways:
overall tally, tally considering only active participants, etc.

4. STCS votes should be purely informative to the RnRS editors and the
STCS process should exist in parallel to the current RnRS process and
the proposed ratification process.

If it turns out that R6 will drag on for a long time, editor attrition and
replacement may become issues.   In that case, STCS voters may make a
useful community to consult (either normatively or informatively).

Post ratification of an RnRS, STCS might also be useful to record
and vote on siding and dissenting opinions of the new Rn.

-t


> - Alan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ratification-discuss mailing list
> Ratification-discuss at lists.r6rs.org
> http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ratification-discuss
>
>