On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Mitchell Wand <[email protected]> wrote:
> Has case-sensitivity become a metaphor for some aspect of the future
> direction of Scheme? I can see this in some of these posts, but if so, it
> might be helpful to spell out the metaphor in more detail, and to relate it
> to the election at hand. (Sorry, I've just been reading a book entitled
> "How to read literature like a Professor." (really)).
>
> Or is this simply another case of the classic tendency of Internet
> discussions to become sidetracked on minor issues (ie Internet ADHD)?
>
> Can we get back to the main subject, please?
There appear to be 4 sentences in the Scheme Standardization
Charter that should guide the considerations of the electorate.
(1) Its responsibility is to ensure that the standardization process
continues, and to establish
processes by which draft standards are reviewed and accepted by
the Scheme community at large.
(2) The Steering Committee itself shall establish procedures for
replacing its members.
(3) This charter can be amended only by a unanimous vote of the
Steering Committee.
(4) None of the Editors may be a member of the Steering Committee.
The charter doesn't appear to actually specify how the Editors selected.
The first is the most obvious definition of what the steering
committee is. I suspect the exercise of the power in the third will
be the subject initially contemplated by the newly elected Steering
committee. The fourth means the selection of a steering committee
member has a potential cost as well as a benefit, assuming it is not
eliminated.
It is much harder to determine who will do a good job at (1) than if
we were asked to elect editors. From the outside, the steering
committee appears to have operated as a kind of dead hand, pushing the
process without much interest in the particular outcome.
The next committee will have to be more active in guiding the process
if the goal of "accept[ance] by the Scheme community at large" is to
be achieved. I am not a member of the electorate, but my choices are
below.
Olin Shivers would be my first and only definite choice. I'm
impressed by his academic work and think his personality is
well-suited to this role. More importantly, I think he might be able
to persuade me if it came to that.
Will Clinger is a much tougher choice. His academic work, dedication
to the Scheme language over decades, thoroughness, and clarity of
thought commands my respect. However, I harbor doubts about the
extent to which his guidance would coincide with my goals. Also,
these same traits make him an excellent editor. He remains a tossup.
Among the others, I perceive Jonathan A. Rees, Chris Hanson, Aubrey
Jaffer, Ray Dillinger as being potentially aligned with my interests.
I consider myself in the "Progressive Diamond" faction, as opposed to
either the "Conservative Diamond" or "Big Hairy Ball" factions.
Actually, I don't know that anyone is in the "Big Hairy Ball" faction,
but my opposition is firm even if it is vacuous.
Lynn
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
