Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:51:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Elf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The voting process seems reasonable, with a few minor changes:
1) I'm fairly sure the schedule part 0 did not intend to say 18 Oct 1008.
Well, it was intentional when we originally drafted the announcement! But
we didn't get the announcement out when we thought we would...
Do you think we should move all the dates further into the future because
of that delay? Or is the reast of the schedule still reasonable?
2) The Exceptional Cases section should be expanded somewhat to detail
what circumstances would be considered exceptional, or the process
by which such determination would be made.
I originally drafted that "Exceptional Cases" paragraph for the
ratification process. My intent was to cover the unexpected cases that we
couldn't describe in advance because we lacked the imagination to foresee
everything that could go wrong -- and indeed a couple of things happened
that we didn't foresee, so we did have to make a couple of judgement calls.
If you would like to improve the wording for that paragraph, you're welcome
to try. I've always been a little tempted to just delete it entirely,
since what it says is really implicit in the entire charter structure: The
Steering Committee serves as a kind of "Supreme Court" who settle any
controversies about process that may arise.
3) I do _NOT_ think that all registered voters for r6 should be
automatically registered for the Steering Committee vote. This is a
separate issue with a somewhat different target audience.
I can see that a case could be made for that. But I also find it hard to
imagine why somebody we registered to vote on ratifying R6RS would be
turned down to vote for a new Steering Committee.
I guess I'd be interested in hearing other opinions about this.
- Alan
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
