Am Di., 7. Okt. 2025 um 13:56 Uhr schrieb Daphne Preston-Kendal
<xxxxxx@nonceword.org>:
>
> On 7 Oct 2025, at 08:10, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Every SRFI author is free in what they suggest, aren't they? If in
> > some SRFI XXX, it is suggested that SRFI YYY should be amended in some
> > particular way (or imported in some particular way), that should not
> > need consent by SRFI YYY's author. I don't think it is good if the
> > SRFI editor makes decisions regarding content (vs form).
>
> I thought we had reached consensus at some point that later SRFIs actually amending earlier SRFIs is a bad idea. They should either supersede them (as 158 superseded 121) or build upon them with new bindings (228 extends 128 but has a completely different set of bindings). In particular, the suggestion of SRFI 162 that its bindings are added to the SRFI 128 library has only caused confusion; we should not repeat that mistake.
>
> Whether that is policy or not, I don’t know.
>
> > What I do think is important is that everyone remembers that a priori
> > a SRFI's contents only reflect the opinion of its author and that it
> > doesn't (necessarily) reflect the consensus of the Scheme community.
>
> True, but a proliferation of SRFIs offering little more than bikeshedding – especially when it affects the core matter of accessibility of other SRFIs through familiar means, like this SRFI – is a bad idea.

I didn't mean that it wouldn't be a bad idea. But preserving SRFI
authors' rights to specify even bad ideas and not judging as part of
the formal process seems more important to me.

PS Just to make it clear: If SRFI 261 just replaced ":XXX" by
"srfi-XXX", I wouldn't call it a bad SRFI but just an acknowledgement
of the fact that the colon idea of SRFI 97 was a bad one.