[Ratification-discuss] *Cough*

[Alan Bawden]

[ I'm not speaking officially for the Steering Committee here.  Even when I
  forget to say this, I'm not speaking officially. ]

   Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:18:10 -0700
   From: Thomas Lord <lord at emf.net>

   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.

This all seems a bit off-topic to me.  The Charter that we're committed too
says that when the Editors think they have a final draft, they will submit
it to the Steering Committee for ratification.  The topic here is about
what the Steering Committee proposes to do to decide whether or not to
ratify such a draft.

You seem to speculating about a different process that would require
rewriting the Charter.

If you want to be on-topic here and you're afraid that the Editors might
submit a draft that you don't think is ready, you could suggest that
instead of holding a strict Yes/No vote, people could also be allowed to
vote some third way that says "please try again".  That would seem to me to
be the same as a "No" vote, but perhaps you can make a case for it.

- Alan