> I don't think there's a positive payoff in the suggested proliferation
> of SRFIs.  They're isolated, but they still require jumping down to
> the world of C, and might as well be bundled with this base POSIX SRFI.
>
>> Things that deal with user/group _numbers_ pertaining to the current
>> process
>
> They're very useful at this base POSIX SRFI level for e.g. logging, so
> I think they should stay here, and have the processes SRFI(s) require
> at least some specific subset of procedures in this SRFI.

These are good arguments. I originally thought having more small SRFIs
is good than a few big ones, but you may convince me to change my opinion.