On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:34 AM, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In the end, we don't vote on a proposal for inclusion unless (a) > we have a SRFI in hand, and (b) we have voted to add the proposal to > StandardDocket (or it's been added by unanimous consent procedure to > either StandardDocket or ConsentDocket). But the order in which those > things happen is not important. > This seems problematic - people are never really sure if they're working on a WG2 SRFI or not. Although I think it's good to use the SRFI process it should be made clear that the SRFI is intended for WG2, which should draw a larger audience. I propose that for SRFIs intended to be included in WG2 the authors send an introduction message to the scheme-reports list making it clear it is intended for WG2, and stating the motivation for including it in the large language. The default draft period in this case should be extended to 4 months (of course extendible so long as there is active discussion). Announcements (including deadline reminders) for the SRFI should be cc'ed to the scheme-reports list. This is of course no guarantee that said SRFI will be accepted in WG2, but it makes the intent clearer and should increase scrutiny and consequently the acceptance rate. -- Alex
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
