On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 2:49 PM, William D Clinger <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
What makes it sound that way? > 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. If you have Unicode, libraries, and records in R7RS more than 75% of the community will vote for it easily. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
