This is an editor's draft and not yet official. New paragraphs are marked as such. The reference to the timeline proved to be unhelpful in WG1 and has been removed. The section on coordination with WG1 has been stripped down to a statement of compatibility. The membership and internal process sections have been rewritten.
Because the SRFI process is open to all members of the Scheme community, the final community vote has been removed from the process.
Working group 2 will develop specifications, documents, and proofs of practical implementability for a language that embodies the essential character of Scheme, that is large enough to address the practical needs of mainstream software development, and that can be extended and integrated with other systems.
The purpose of this work is to facilitate sharing of Scheme code. One goal is to be able to reuse code written in one conforming implementation in another conforming implementation with as little change as possible. Another goal is for users of this work to be able to understand each other's code based on a shared and unambiguous interpretation of its meaning.
The language is not necessarily intended for educational, research, or embedded use, though such uses are not prohibited. Therefore, it may be a "heavyweight" language compared to the language designed by working group 1.
To promote extensibility, the language developed by working group 2 must include support for macros and modules in a way that is appropriate for the language's size and goals.
When deciding which features to include in the language, working group 2 should consider all features provided by R6RS Scheme, and all criticisms of those features. Insofar as practical, the language should be backwards compatible with an appropriate subset of the R6RS standard.
Working group 2 may also consider whether it is practical to add new features to support networking, threads, internationalization, foreign-function interfaces, et cetera. Working group 2 is encouraged to propose new working groups for any new features that it considers desirable but cannot pursue without risking the timeliness of its primary mission.
Self consistency is an important objective, which may require adding new features.
Working group 2 must develop written specifications for the language. These specifications must be accompanied by concise statements of all formal comments and objections that have been raised by members of the working group or by the Scheme community at large. The working group should also provide a written design rationale, executable reference implementations, test suites, and other artifacts that would assist with constructive debate or increase acceptance of the language.
Every implementation of the specifications produced by working group 2 must be an implementation of the specifications produced by working group 1. Every program that conforms to the specifications produced by working group 1 (and relies on no features beyond those guaranteed by those specifications) must also be a program that conforms to the specifications produced by working group 2.
New: Any member of the Scheme community may become a member of the working group with the consent of the chair, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Membership decisions made by the chair may be appealed to the Steering Committee. It is expected that new members will join throughout the life of the working group.
Members of the working group should endorse the goals of the working group and be willing and able to work toward consensus. Working groups 1 and 2 should have some members in common.
All technical discussions must be made public. This requirement can be satisfied by timely posting of email and the technical minutes of meetings at a public web site, and by maintaining a publicly readable mailing list devoted to working group 2's technical discussions.
The chair of the working group is expected to develop an internal process that allows the working group to achieve its objectives.
New: Insofar as practical, the working group should leverage the existing SRFI process to develop the standard. Any member of the working group can propose that a SRFI, existing or to be created, should become part of the language. It is expected that many existing and new SRFIs will be added to the language in this fashion. Sections of the R6RS standards may be treated as SRFIs for this purpose.
New: If the working group agrees, the SRFI as a whole will become an optional part of the language, constituting one or more libraries. If the chair believes a proposal is sufficiently uncontroversial, the SRFI may be added to the language without consulting the working group, although any such action by the chair may be overridden at the request of any member, in which case the working group shall vote on the proposal.
New: In exceptional circumstances, the working group may decide explicitly to make a SRFI a required part of the language.
The working group is expected to strive for consensus on all decisions. Where consensus cannot be achieved, the working group may proceed on the basis of a vote, but the results of such votes must be preserved within the public record, along with the reasons for dissent. Minority positions may be registered as formal objections (see above).
New: When the working group votes yes or no on a proposal, a simple majority of the legal votes cast (ignoring abstentions) shall determine the vote. A process similar to the ranked-pairs voting used by working group 1 may be used in the case of multiple competing proposals.
The work products developed by working group 2 will be submitted to the Steering Committee for endorsement. The Steering Committee will work with working group 2 to seek maximum possible timely consensus on the work products. In considering whether to endorse the work products, the Steering Committee will consider whether the work products meet the charter requirements, as well as the level of support that they enjoy.
New: Given the modular nature of the standard, the working group is encouraged to submit work products for endorsement on a rolling basis rather than waiting for the effort to be complete.
If the Steering Committee believes that support could be increased by revising work products in response to specific objections, then it may request another draft/review cycle of the working group.
The Steering Committee selects, and may replace, the working group's chair.
The working group may elect or appoint other officers as it sees fit.
New: The Steering Committee may terminate the working group on request of the chair or on its own motion at any time.