This site is a static rendering of the Trac instance that was used by R7RS-WG1 for its work on R7RS-small (PDF), which was ratified in 2013. For more information, see Home.

Source for ticket #497

cc


    

changetime

2013-07-07 03:20:44

component

WG1 - Core

description

Göran Weinholt writes:

  This paragraph is from RRRS (AIM-848):

    Editor's note: This report records the unanimous decisions made through a remarkable spirit of compromise at Brandeis, together with the fruits of subsequent committee work and discussions made possible by various computer networks. I have tried to edit these into a coherent document while remaining faithful to the workshop's decisions and the community's consensus. I apologize for any cases in which I have misinterpreted the authors or misjudged the consensus.

  Contrast that with the equivalent paragraph from draft 9:

    Note: The editors of the R5RS and R6RS reports are listed as authors of this report in recognition of the substantial portions of this report that are copied directly from R5RS and R6RS. There is no   intended implication that those editors, individually or collectively, support or do not support this report.

  This note shows that there is something broken in the Scheme community  and it has affected the report. Ratifying draft 9 does nothing to fix this problem.

id

497

keywords


    

milestone


    

owner

alexshinn

priority

major

reporter

cowan

resolution

wontfix

severity


    

status

closed

summary

The Scheme community is broken

time

2013-05-12 23:50:17

type

defect

Changes

Change at time 2013-07-07 03:20:44

author

cowan

field

comment

newvalue

The WG decided by unanimous consent to take no action on this ticket.

oldvalue

2

raw-time

1373142044410382

ticket

497

time

2013-07-07 03:20:44

Change at time 2013-07-07 03:20:44

author

cowan

field

resolution

newvalue

wontfix

oldvalue


    

raw-time

1373142044410382

ticket

497

time

2013-07-07 03:20:44

Change at time 2013-07-07 03:20:44

author

cowan

field

status

newvalue

closed

oldvalue

new

raw-time

1373142044410382

ticket

497

time

2013-07-07 03:20:44

Change at time 2013-05-12 23:56:39

author

cowan

field

comment

newvalue

I don't see that ''any'' standard should be expected to "fix" its community, if the community is indeed broken (which I deny).  The paragraph quoted from the draft is a simple courtesy to those whose work was recycled into a project which they may or may not support: indeed, at least one R6RS editor has voted against the draft already.  Such a paragraph ought, in my opinion, to have appeared in R6RS also: that document names the three R5RS editors in its authors section, notwithstanding that two of them had voted against its endorsement and the third had remained silent.

No one can regret more than I the loss of consensus as the decision-making mechanism.  However, no other standards tradition imposes it, and the fact that a different and more democratic mechanism has been found that allows substantial progress over R5RS, without triggering more resentment than it has, is for me a cause for far more celebration than sadness.

oldvalue

1

raw-time

1368377799660941

ticket

497

time

2013-05-12 23:56:39