>> I have to ask this again: How is all your text above and below related
>> to my observation above that - de facto - SRFIs didn't remain as
>> stable as sketched by Marc?

We should look at exemplary uses of the SRFI process, not at all uses.

>> Where do you find this statement backed up in the SRFI documents; a
>> lot of SRFIs like, say, SRFI 8 are incremental improvements.

SRFI 8 revised call-with-values once, then stayed intact for 20 years.
If revised, it would begin to lose its legitimacy.

If we made ten revisions to SRFI 1, it would be obvious that we have no
idea what list library Scheme should have.

Jazz is a good point of comparison. Coltrane could have recorded ten
studio sessions of A Love Supreme. But since there isn't a larger
framework for achieving perfection in jazz, release 9 would not be
substantially better than release 1.

I happen to have such a framework in mind for libraries but it's very
different from SRFI. The effort to pull it off will be immense.

> (If option (2) or (3) is chosen, the meaning of an implementation of
> SRFI 116 is obviously time-dependent.)

Indeed, that's the problem.