David Rush wrote: > 2009/9/7 Brian Harvey <[email protected]>: >> Add my vote for the proposal that "Small Scheme" = R4RS. > > Me three.
This does not satisfy the requirements and goals stated in the Small Scheme charter, which says the language "must include support for macros and modules/libraries in a way that is appropriate for the language's small size." I am not saying this to take issue with your opinion, but rather, I think it highlights a procedural problem with the steering committee's process. The proposal seeks 90% approval for the SWG1 document, but seeks no approval of the requirements and goals stated in the charter. In other words, those who feel Small Scheme = R4RS would, it seems, not vote for *any* document satisfying the goals and requirements stated in the charter. What is the working group to do, then? They have an obligation to both fulfill the requirements *and* seek a 90% approval, but as this thread demonstrates, these things may be fundamentally at odds. To put it another way, I believe the eventual vote on the WG1 document should be (explicitly) premised on acceptance of the requirements and goals of the WG1 charter and the issue to decide by vote is whether or not the document satisfies those requirements and goals. Those who reject the charter should not weigh in on such a matter. So now is the time to decide if collectively we can get behind the charters as proposed by the steering committee. Despite the copious effusions on this mailing list, I have seen very little on the matter of whether or not the charters are sound. David _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
