1. One of the tasks of the steering committee is to make decisions in (alleged) code of conduct violations in WG2 and in its public forums.
In July 2024, when I was doing initial preparations to introduce a code of conduct for WG2, I asked if you would be interested in being part of a moderation group responsible for enforcement. You declined, saying among other things that ‘codes of conduct are noble in intent, but fraught in implementation’ and ‘it's too easy for codes of conduct to be used to exclude people because of their political views’ (direct quotes). Why have you changed your mind? Have your views, as you expressed them then, changed? 2. Relatedly, after having asked you about potentially becoming a moderator of WG2, I subsequently became aware of your comments on the following blog posts by Andy Wingo: <https://wingolog.org/archives/2017/09/04/the-hardest-thing-about-hiring-is-avoiding-the-fash> <https://wingolog.org/archives/2017/09/05/a-new-interview-question> Do you believe that these comments show the empathy, understanding, and sensitivity required of someone in a position responsible, among other things, for protecting vulnerable members of the Scheme community who wish to contribute to the reports process? 3. On 9 December 2025 I informed you publically that I intended to ask the new Steering Committee to mediate between us concerning the dispute over SRFI 261, the apparent ability of subsequent SRFIs to amend prior SRFIs by different authors, and the maintenance of the SRFI metadata in light of now-conflicting sources of library names. (Including your apparent refusal to answer some of these questions at all.) Do you believe that accepting a nomination to the Steering Committee was the correct decision, in this context? Especially considering, firstly, that you knew when you accepted that I had already told you of my intention to go to the Steering Committee as a neutral mediator; secondly, that (as long as I am WG2 chair and the WG2 charter requires us to work within the SRFI process, and you are the sole SRFI editor) we are pretty well obliged to work well together and try to resolve any conflicts between us swiftly and irenically; and thirdly, that you have still not made any suggestions of your own for how to resolve this particular conflict? 4. On 11 December 2025 I asked you, in a private mail, whom you believe you’re accountable to, first in your role as SRFI editor, and second in your role as (co-)administrator of scheme.org. This was part of an attempt to find mediation which you would find acceptable. You refused to answer the question. The only part of your response which pertained to the actual content of my questions implied that you reject the notion of the sovereignty of the Scheme community as a whole over the future direction of the Scheme language. Can you say more about your views on accountability, and the community’s rôle in the Scheme language? Daphne
