[R6RS] Mailing list

Manuel Serrano Manuel.Serrano
Wed Jan 21 11:22:04 EST 2004

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:12:21 -0500
Marc Feeley <feeley at iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

> > >>>>> "Marc" == Marc Feeley <feeley at IRO.UMontreal.CA> writes:
> > 
> > Marc> At this point, only the editors can post to the list and read the
> > Marc> archive.  When our job is done and R6RS is finalized I think the
> > Marc> archive should become public
> > 
> > While it's probably your privilege to handle things this way, I'd like
> > to point out that many posts to scheme-strategy@ indicated a
> > willingness to conduct the R6RS process in a more open and inclusive
> > way.  On scheme-strategy@, as far as I remember, nobody ever suggested
> > a closed process like the one you're about to run.  (I don't know much
> > about what transpired at the workshop as far as this question is
> > concerned.)
> > 
> > I don't know how everyone else here feels about this.
> I'd really like to know what all the editors think about this.  I feel
> that 7 editors is a large enough group to make it difficult to
> maintain the focus on the issues we discuss.  If we open up the
> process to the public, we may get lost in all the proposals, opinions
> and wish-lists that are sent to us.  Witness the current flurry of
> messages on the SRFI-50 mailing-list...  I would like to contribute,
> but I just can't keep up with all the discussions.  To stay in control
> of the R6RS process, I feel it is best to limit the discussions to the
I definitively agree with Marc. In order to improve the chance to make
real progress with r6rs, I'm convinced that we must keep the discussion 
private. At least at the beginning. 

> 7 editors.  We can have progress reports (as indicated in the charter)
> to inform the public and get their pulse.
Don't you think that it's too soon to setup a full process. Why don't we
start and then, in a couple of monthes, decide how and what should be
made public?


More information about the R6RS mailing list