Yes, I think so. 

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 7:30 PM <xxxxxx@ancell-ent.com> wrote:
Done.  I presume this is too small a change to the HTML document to warrant asking for another draft immediately?

- Harold

----- Original message -----
From: John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>
Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 3:31 PM

I think so. 

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 4:29 PM <xxxxxx@ancell-ent.com> wrote:

So I should remove parent-pid and process-group from SRFI 170?  - Harold

----- Original message -----
From: John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>
Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 3:12 PM

On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 9:50 AM <xxxxxx@ancell-ent.com> wrote:

I want to bring back the `parent-pid` and `process-group` accessors as well as adding `session-id`.  They don't fit well into my ProcessesCowan proposal, but they are harmless and trivial to implement.'

I am retracting this statement.  They fit into ProcessesCowan well enough, now that I have the concept of a synthetic process object (one that is made either from a pid or directly for the current process).  You cannot wait on a synthetic proc, but you can get its parent and get/set its process-group, session, etc.