Problems technical and procedural
Daphne Preston-Kendal
(02 Dec 2023 10:00 UTC)
|
||
Re: Problems technical and procedural
John Cowan
(02 Dec 2023 10:40 UTC)
|
||
Re: Problems technical and procedural Daphne Preston-Kendal (02 Dec 2023 11:04 UTC)
|
||
Re: Problems technical and procedural
Arthur A. Gleckler
(02 Dec 2023 16:01 UTC)
|
||
Re: Problems technical and procedural
Per Bothner
(02 Dec 2023 17:06 UTC)
|
||
Re: Problems technical and procedural
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(02 Dec 2023 17:18 UTC)
|
||
Re: Problems technical and procedural
Arthur A. Gleckler
(02 Dec 2023 17:33 UTC)
|
||
Re: Problems technical and procedural
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(02 Dec 2023 17:23 UTC)
|
||
Re: Problems technical and procedural
Arthur A. Gleckler
(02 Dec 2023 17:37 UTC)
|
||
Re: Problems technical and procedural
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(04 Dec 2023 08:50 UTC)
|
||
Re: Problems technical and procedural
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(02 Dec 2023 10:43 UTC)
|
||
Re: Problems technical and procedural
Sergei Egorov
(02 Dec 2023 10:45 UTC)
|
||
Re: Problems technical and procedural
Daphne Preston-Kendal
(02 Dec 2023 11:11 UTC)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
Re: Problems technical and procedural
Daphne Preston-Kendal
(02 Dec 2023 17:46 UTC)
|
On 2 Dec 2023, at 11:39, John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 2, 2023 at 5:00 AM Daphne Preston-Kendal <xxxxxx@nonceword.org> wrote: > >> Moreover, I am somewhat puzzled that a new SRFI proposing essentially a minor variant on SRFI 245 was accepted for consideration while 245 is still in draft status, without this proposal having been made on the mailing list there first to see if there was interest in taking it up. > > The SRFI process document says: "The editors may not reject a proposal because they disagree with the importance of the proposal, or because they think it is a wrong-headed approach to the problem." I don’t think this is relevant, unless ‘wrong-headed approach to the problem’ includes approaches to procedural as well as technical issues. If Sergei had made his proposal on the SRFI 245 list and was unsatisfied by the response, he could still have submitted his own SRFI with his own approach to the problem. As it is, this proposal was sprung on us as a separate, competing SRFI out of nowhere. Daphne