> 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.
IMHO we should be wary of the word "progress." For one, I would be very happy with a process that involved a large editorial committee, started with, say, R3RS as the baseline, and required a 3/4 affirmative vote for any changes. I'm not saying there haven't been any beneficial changes since R3RS. But the trend has been to make the language harder to learn and less beautiful, I believe. (The R6RS disaster merely accelerated that process.) Good changes should easily win a 3/4 vote. The rest of your statement seems very reasonable; I'm not trying to pick a fight here. And I'm not running for office. (P.S. Changes to the "Languages should..." paragraph should require a 105% affirmative vote. :-) _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
