The WP article on "five whys" says you should keep asking "Why?" until you get to a broken process.  I think in this case we need to change the SRFI acceptance process to *require* a test suite.  I submitted SRFI 142 without one; if I had been required instead of just encouraged to produce one, this would almost certainly have been caught before SRFI 142 was finalized.

I see that the SRFI FAQ says that a reference implementation "should also include automated tests. Having them will help implementors, and that will increase the likelihood that your SRFI will be incorporated in Scheme implementations. It will also help users understand how your SRFI is to be used."  I think this needs to be moved to the process document, and the "should" taken seriously: that is, it is a "must" unless a specific justification for not having tests is provided.  There was no such justification in SRFI 142, just laziness on my part.  The SRFI ought not to have been accepted without them.  (Note that even a SRFI without an implementation can have tests.)