On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 4:31 PM John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote:
> In my case, at least, it's not so much that the SRFIs are unpolished, as > that they only handle part of the problem, the part I myself can see > clearly. The SRFI discussion provides for the transition from mere > opinions to actual positions that can then be debated and hopefully > resolved. > Yes, I agree, and I apologize for the unpolished language of my message. I suppose what I wanted to say was that I hope authors will wait until they've addressed all the known unknowns before submitting the first draft. Discovering the unknown unknowns is one of the great benefits of the discussion. And I'm not sure how earlier SRFIs were done in sixty to ninety days. > (Of course there is also the problem that people don't notice there is a > SRFI they want to comment on until they hear that it is about to finalize. > I don't know what to do about that. Likewise there is the problem of > insufficient resources.) > Yes and yes. I keep thinking that there must be a way to help solve some of our problems with bribery. More stickers, anyone?
