On 2 Dec 2023, at 11:39, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote: > 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."
I don’t think this is relevant, unless ‘wrong-headed approach to the problem’ includes approaches to procedural as well as technical issues. If Sergei had made his proposal on the SRFI 245 list and was unsatisfied by the response, he could still have submitted his own SRFI with his own approach to the problem. As it is, this proposal was sprung on us as a separate, competing SRFI out of nowhere. Daphne
