Here is a hopefully complete list of problems with SRFI 261. I am considering only the conflicts with existing practice and with its own declared principles, not my disagreements with the ideas in the SRFI (which I also have).

1. To SRFI 4 it refuses to assign a name, although the SRFI metadata gives it the name ‘numeric-vectors’.

2. To SRFI 105 it refuses to assign a name with the reasoning ‘Dependent on Specific Scheme implementations’, but several other SRFIs (e.g. SRFI 170) which aren’t portably implementable are given names

3. To SRFI 120 it refuses to assign a name with the reasoning ‘Dependent on withdrawn SRFI 114’, although SRFI 120 does no such thing

4. To SRFI 123 it refuses to assign a name with the reasoning ‘Dependent on lexical syntax modification (SRFI 105)’, although SRFI 123’s SRFI 105 integration is an optional feature

5. To SRFI 124 it refuses to assign a name with the reasoning ‘Dependent on garbage collection modification’, though the SRFI makes clear (rightly or wrongly) that an ephemeron implementation which holds its references strongly is conforming

6. To SRFI 158 it purports to assign the name ‘generators-and-accumulators’; to SRFI 221 it purports to assign the name ‘generators&accumulators’. There is no clear reason for the discrepancy in conventions.

7. To SRFI 135 it refuses to assign a name with the reasoning ‘Modifies $R^{5/6/7}RS$ string implementation’, although SRFI 135 does no such thing

8. To SRFI 138 it purports to assign the name ‘compiling’, although SRFI 138 exports no identifiers and could not be meaningfully imported

9. To SRFIs 147, 148, 149, and 150 it refuses to assign a name with the reasoning ‘Modifies syntax-rules implementation’, although none of these SRFIs do any such thing (considering the PFN to SRFI 149, and that the related SRFI 46 is given a name)

10. To SRFI 176 it purports to assign the name ‘version’, although SRFI 176 exports no identifiers and could not be meaningfully imported

11. To SRFI 181 it refuses to assign a name with the reasoning ‘Modifies let-syntax and letrec-syntax’, although SRFI 181 does no such thing

12. To SRFI 185 it refuses to assign a name with the reasoning ‘Modifies Scheme's historical fixed-length string implementation’, although that implementation strategy is optional

13. To SRFI 207 it refuses to assign a name, although the author gave it the name ‘bytestrings’ in the SRFI metadata

14. To SRFI 226 it purports to assign the name ‘control-features’, although SRFI 226 gives itself the name ‘control’

15. To SRFI 227 it purports to assign the name ‘optional-arguments’, although SRFI 227 gives itself the name ‘opt-lambda’

16. To SRFI 247 it purports to assign the name ‘syntactic-monands’, which is misspelled

17. To SRFI 251 it purports to assign the name ‘body-mixtures’, although SRFI 251 exports no identifiers, could not meaningfully be imported, and should be ineligible under the SRFI’s declared rules because it changes the core syntax and semantics of Scheme

Daphne