I'd like to see more candidate statements. My nomination blurb was not meant to be one, and I would expect the same to be true of others'.
Here is my statement: I think the group might consider some of the following: - A more conventional working group structure, with understanding of benefits and obligations of membership - More conventional engineering process (charter, goals, requirements, use cases, ...) - Examination of process used in other similar groups; experimentation with different practices - Maybe multiple charters / groups / reports aiming for different goals and using different process - Decision-making process that is inclusive, transparent, and lightweight - Clarity over costs and benefits to participants of working together (null hypothesis = no cooperation) - Monitoring of needs, resources, and commitments If some of the above turn out to be bad ideas I won't push them dogmatically. The main thing is to work with community members (including steering committee) to enable people work together more happily. I think the successes and shortcomings of the SRFI process should be examined so we can learn from it. I have not been involved but I wonder whether R6RS should have been more SRFI-like, and the SRFI process should have been more report-like. It looks like we have erred sometimes on the side of undercoordination, sometimes on the side of overcoordination. I see a community that wants to do things together, but I don't see an R7RS as a given. I think an activist steering committee would be a good thing at this stage. In the event I ended up on the SC I wouldn't plan to make a secret of my opinions on process, editorial, or technical issues. From my point of view the biggest challenges are articulating objectives and requirements, obtaining peace among competing philosophies, figuring out how to sidestep disagreements, and settling control of the group's 'trademarks' (what to call the various languages and reports). The pre-R6RS process achieved harmony and quality by halting progress. The R6RS process traded harmony for progress. There has to be a third way. Jonathan _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
