>      > My view is that the people doing the work get to
>      > decide.
>
>     Agreed. This is a very important principle.
>
> Let's be very careful here.  I don't have time to write a longer
> response at the moment, but the idea of my paragraph quoted from above
> was *not* that the person currently doing the work should have /carte
> blanche/.  The second part of the paragraph says that it's vitally
> important to have agreement on basic goals.  Otherwise, only one person
> /can/ do the work/./  If we want more people to join in, we need to have
> a good outline.

What's the real problem here? I bet it's either a temperamental mismatch
or a trust issue.

The current project is not objectively too chaotic at all. It may be too
chaotic if you have a temperament that thrives on plans and order. I
have the opposite temperament, and plans get in my way. I follow some
projects that are chaotic from my standpoint and it doesn't bother me. I
can always ask if I don't understand something. It's just not a problem
to me; I see it as productive.

Trust issues can happen if there if disagreement on values (e.g.
representing Scheme's interests by adopting a maximally Scheme-based
solution as Amirouche mentioned). We don't disagree about the end goal
here; we just disagree about the timetable. I think it's more important
to get a good solution running fast and easy, even if it's not
Scheme-based; we can convert it to use more Scheme gradually. Amirouche
thought (correct me if I'm wrong) that it's better to go all-Scheme
right away, even if the solution is not as technically mature or easy as
a non-Scheme approach.

Let's just make a compromise then. My suggested compromise is in the
"Proposal for a simple plan" thread; please comment.