On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 01:30 -0500, Aaron W. Hsu wrote:
> Moreover, this conversation is not useful in the context of the SC,
> to me, because I don't want the SC in charge of choosing the next
> features. I want them in charge of choosing how to decide if a
> feature is worth using, or to decide the abstract goals and approaches
> and design of Scheme that will be used as the overarching principle
> when the Editors actually decide whether an FFI should go in the
> standard, and how.
True, and this is the most relevant point.
We're trying to decide:
How shall we choose the steering committee?
When we implement that process, we shall decide:
Who shall be on the steering committee and why?
The steering committee will later decide:
What are our *criteria* for usefulness in reports
and language features?
At some point the steering committee will then decide:
What procedure shall the editors use?
Who shall be the editors?
And the editors decide:
What language features are useful?
I'm mixing up stages of the process when I talk already about answers
to the last question. Forgive me, I guess I'm finding it hard to think
through so many layers of meta.
Bear
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
