Tom Lord wrote:
> By withdrawing, you gain the time to carefully review all of the
> arguments already presented for withdrawal.
>
> There have been several such arguments for withdrawal, _uncontested_
> except by you, at this point.

To be honest, when Bradd first started raising serious objections, it was
done in such a strident manner, by someone I was unfamiliar with, that I was
inclined to ignore them on the assumption that if no-one agreed with him,
the issue would die down.  It now looks as though that didn't happen...

It seems to me if there's going to be major contesting starting at this late
stage, there's a case for having some substantive discussion about it before
simply withdrawing the SRFI.  Otherwise, a precedent is created in which the
SRFI process can be sabotaged by sustained last-minute attacks.

I've been monitoring this SRFI loosely since at least May, but
unfortunately, haven't had time to filter the meaningful content out of the
flurry of low-signal-to-noise-ratio activity over the last week or so.  I'm
looking at it now.

Anton