[Ratification-discuss] *Cough*

[Thomas Lord]

Sorry that seems a bit off-topic.  I'll briefly try to reframe it so 
that it isn't.

Let's consider what the Steering Committee usefully learns from a yes/no
vote for or against the entire draft.   For that, we have to think about why
somebody would vote yes or no for the entire draft.

Consider the position of an implementor who very much wants, say,
the module system to be standardized quickly, but who has
reservations about, say, characters.   If they are anxious for
the module system but can merely "live with" characters, they're
motivated to vote "yes".

What the Steering Committee learns about the draft from a
"yes" outcome in the proposed process is only that, minimally,
nothing in the draft is sufficiently bad as to offend a supermajority.
They *don't* learn that all of the important details of the draft
are pleasing to a supermajority.   Yet, it is that latter condition that
I hope would be the aim of the process.

Why not, then, look for a finer grain way to inform the ratification
process, ideally one that soundly and quasi-officially records
wide-spread agreement on uncontroversial changes?   If this were to
lead to a reconsideration of the charter, and the creation of alternative
routes to formal standards, well, so be it.

In the alternative, if R6 really represents a kind of "Common Scheme"
-- an agreement among a set of implementors who are each represented
on the editorial committee -- then why take a community vote at all?

I don't mean to be argumentative, by the way.  I simply wanted
to put the idea forward.

-t


Alan Bawden wrote:
> [ 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
>
>