On 8 Dec 2025, at 06:29, Arthur A. Gleckler <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> wrote:

> I haven't been able to understand the force or substance of your disagreement in any other way, but please forgive me if I'm wrong.

I can summarize my position in one sentence:

If SRFIs represent the proposal of nobody but their author, then no other author should be able to come in later and make arbitrary changes to that proposal without their author’s consent.

To elaborate:

There are numerous SRFIs I disagree with in how they go about solving the problem they attempt to solve. If I want to do better, I will submit a new SRFI which I think does the same job but better. I will not propose to have the other SRFI author’s proposal, in the form of the library they defined, changed. I will define a new library which represents *my* proposal. And I will certainly not try to declare that the name the SRFI author assigned to their own library is wrong and try to change or remove it.

SRFI 261 does exactly this and is therefore an abuse of the process and should not have been accepted for finalization.

If this is based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of SRFIs or their process, please clarify. (On one minor point: in practice, of course, the ‘without their author’s consent’ part of the single-sentence summary is restricted by the limitations put on amendments by the SRFI process to anything which has been ‘finalized’. Let us set that aside as irrelevant.)

Daphne