John Nowak wrote: > I would just like to briefly express my intense irritation that an > explanation was required only for "no" votes. Those voting yes can do so > easily without even reading the draft, while those that wanted to vote no had > the pressure of publicly justifying their vote on technical grounds. I would > not be surprised if there are many that would have voted "no" in the same way > many voted "yes" if a coherent explanation wasn't required. > > Requiring explanations either way would have been a start. Requiring > explanations for neither would have been the proper way to do it. The only > way in which the system used might have been reasonable would have been if > the electorate were smaller and precisely chosen. As it is now, there are > many people voting yes without any hint either in their explanations (or lack > thereof) or in mailing list posts that they've even read the thing. What a > joke! > >
And it only passed by 7 votes out of 100, too. I hope there is an invariant whether it is officially ratified or not: end of process; take it to the SRFI world. -t _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
