Mark H Weaver scripsit: > I would not hold this against you if not for your utter unwillingness > to listen to reason. [...] Clearly, I will have to appeal to others > with more authority than you, because you are impervious to reason.
With respect, I suggest that you are overreacting. What is more, you talk as if Alex was a bureaucrat or a judge, but he's the Speaker of a deliberative assembly operating on democratic principles. Your range of options is roughly as follows: 1) You can persuade a WG member to file an appeal from Alex's decision not to reopen this issue. If a majority of the legal votes cast are in favor of overriding Alex's decision, the WG will have to reconsider the matter. Of course, that won't help if the WG then votes the same way that it did before. 2) You can appeal to the Steering Committee to appoint a new chair who will put the matter to a vote yet again. Again, that doesn't affect what the WG does. 3) You can ask the SC to reject the draft on the grounds that it does not meet the charter requirements. 4) You can lobby the electorate to get them to vote against the draft on the same grounds. 5) You can try to convince Scheme implementers not to implement this feature, or even not to implement R7RS-small altogether. 6) You can try to convince the Scheme community not to use implementations that implement R7RS-small. 7) You can strive for world domination so that you can command everyone to avoid R7RS-small. You can judge for yourself which, if any, of these actions will have sufficient probability of success to be worth the efforts they will entail on your part. And now I'm done with this conversation. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] Uneasy lies the head that wears the Editor's hat! --Eddie Foirbeis Climo _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
