On Feb 19, 2009, at 6:23 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:19:06 -0500 > From: Matthias Felleisen <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [r6rs-discuss] R5RS is not a baseline > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed > > > On Feb 19, 2009, at 4:31 PM, [email protected] > wrote: > >> 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. > > > 1. What super-duper majority do people need to accept that a vote has > been decided? > > 2. I don't think the word 'baseline' should be taken as > 'unmodifiable, every feature stays.' Instead, I can see a voting > procedure. If 60% of voters wish to remove a feature, it should go > away. Or something like that. > > 3. Baseline means that you don't repeat all the discussions for all > the changes. You focus on the bad parts and leave the good parts > alone. > > -- Matthias
I don't think we want a steering committee consisting of members who either (a) want to tear down R6RS and start over or (b) have so much invested in R6RS that they want to make it super-difficult to remove features from it it after we've had some experience with all the new things in it. I think the previous steering committee did a good job, I think many of the current candidates have too much invested one way or the other with respect to the current standard to be good steering committee members. I also think that one can choose a good committee from among the candidates that are running. Brad _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
