On Sat, Dec 2, 2023 at 5:00 AM Daphne Preston-Kendal <[email protected]> wrote:
> Moreover, I am somewhat puzzled that a new SRFI proposing essentially a > minor variant on SRFI 245 was accepted for consideration while 245 is still > in draft status, without this proposal having been made on the mailing list > there first to see if there was interest in taking it up. > The SRFI process document says: "The editors may not reject a proposal because they disagree with the importance of the proposal, or because they think it is a wrong-headed approach to the problem."
