The old language in the SRFI process seemed to imply that, for quality reasons, the 90-day deadline is needed. I'm not at all convinced about this, so I like your new language better. I see that some kind of limit is useful because the more SRFIs in draft status, the bigger will the administrative overhead be.
In any case, I do not see time constraints as a major issue with the current SRFI process. The problem I see is that many SRFIs are discussed by far too few people. Moreover, the people that have been involved in discussing SRFIs only reflect a small part of the Scheme community. The R6RS process was blamed for this, but the same can probably be said about the current SRFI process. I haven't made any statistics but I have the strong feeling that the community was *much* more diverse during the first 50 or 100 SRFIs. In a discussion about the inclusion of SRFI 88/89 to Chez, Kent Dybvig once wrote: "[...] SRFIs are not standards and are vetted, for the most part, only by people who are interested in the mechanism." I think this hits a nail on its head. Our reviewers are all biased. Who does review and examine thoroughly a SRFI they are not really interested in? Marc Am So., 31. Jan. 2021 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Arthur A. Gleckler < [email protected]>: > 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? >
