Andy Wingo writes:
The question that the Scheme community should ask itself, though, is "does the world need a better R5RS?" After all, R5RS was released 15 years ago, and in many ways that focus has limited the results of WG1. The intervening years have taught us much about the interactions of modules with macros, about delimited continuations, about concurrency, and about how concurrency affects our choice of basic data structures. In this regard there are still many steps to make for Scheme to make.
The WG decided by unanimous consent to take no action on this ticket.
It would be foolish to deny this. However, the question is not just one of a better R5RS, but of a better R5RS that can lead to a better R6RS, namely the R7RS-large language. The work of WG1 can be seen as shoring up the foundations while not trying to do too much at once. The past cannot simply be abandoned, no matter how flawed it is.