Brian Harvey's proposal was: > I propose that R5RS be the baseline [I'd be happier to start even earlier, > but think that agreement on R5RS will be easiest to get], and that changes > require a 3/4 vote to approve (not to veto!), from an editoral board at > least the size and diversity of the one listed on the first page of R5RS.
Or take the IEEE/ANSI standard as a baseline. It sounds like some people are afraid that some of the changes made in the R6RS wouldn't be supported by 75%, so they'd prefer to regard the 65% who voted to ratify the R6RS as the ultimate arbiters. In my opinion, changes that can't gain the support of 75% probably shouldn't have been made in the first place. I believe the good parts of the R6RS would have little trouble gaining the support of 75%, but that may just mean I have more respect for the R6RS than some of those who proclaimed its perfection or voted to ratify it. Will _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
