On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 00:54 -0800, Elf wrote: > On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Thomas Lord wrote:
> > Probably the reason (imo) is that your pejoratives > > are misplaced. That most -- *most* -- of the discussion > > is not "off topic" > > With the list's permission, I will attach the last 7 days of c.l.s. for > a group decision about its suitability for the r7 discussions. I misunderstood *which* discussions you were grousing about. I thought you were complaining about things like discussing case (in)sensitivity. Sorry. > > > and that the universal skepticism > > about this standards effort and in some cases the deeper > > deconstruction of the effort (and attempt to push things > > to a better track) is, well, more wise. > > > > So what's wrong with using the r6 or r7 discussion lists? They are open to > the public, stay on relevant topics, aren't trivially spammable, and can > be moderated if necessary. It's unclear to me whether such lists are for discussing the design of Scheme or for discussing R6 and R7. As a practical example there was some suggestion that the case folding discussion was inappropriate for the forum. That kind of problem seems likely to come up again. In a more urgent time I can easily imagine that kind of disagreement resulting in moderation. It's also not clear to me what the purpose of such discussions would be and hence what a good format would be. For example, what if two subgroups have irreconcilable differences over something like case folding. Is the goal to "discuss" until one side gets tired? Or to take a vote to officially determine which side is wrong? -t _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
