On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 20:28 -0800, Arthur A. Gleckler wrote:
> > Unfortunately, some of the reaction against the R6RS process manifested
> > itself in disengagement, so lack of visible outrage was not necessarily
> > a good sign.
>
> Yes, several well respected Scheme implementers gave up on the process
> early on, which was disappointing. And many held their noses while
> quietly voting yes, since no statement was required of those who did
> so.
For what it's worth, I think a lot of people objected to R6 because they
believed the process had not included them in a meaningful way, or
because they thought it was ratified before the process was finished.
The committee seemed to be in a rush to publish the standard, and they
did not give rationales for most of their decisions. Most especially,
they did not give rationales for the rejection of competing proposals.
This may have been done out of a desire to keep the standard small in
word count, but it contributed to a feeling that crucial choices were
made without considering (or acknowledging) the community's input.
In asking for statements from dissenting voters, the R6 committee
compounded this error by asking people to articulate the very
disagreements and alternatives that they had expressly failed to
give rationales for rejecting. Thus, the dissenters were explicitly
given the last (and only) word on the matters and these disagreements
in the absence of rationale or feedback carried a lot more weight
(and convinced many more people of positions contrary to the standard)
than they would have had the committee given rationales and explicitly
addressed competing positions.
I was upset because of inconsistencies and errors in the "final"
document, and especially because it was ratified while known
inconsistencies and errors were in it. Aside from "matters of
taste" and alternative models that I think would have been technically
better for some things, getting to a final ratification while
acknowledged, uncorrected errors remained in the document seemed to be
sloppy and rushed work.
R7 should try to avoid some of the processes and pitfalls that led to
such an unfortunate and disruptive reception of R6.
Bear
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
