> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> I agree that last-minute sabotage would be a bad thing. However, keep in
>> mind that the SRFI process is about consensus. If it were just me
>> arguing, no matter how vocally, I'd still recommend finalization (so
>> long as the final version met the basic SRFI requirements, which the
>> current draft does not).

xxxxxx@freenetproject.org wrote:
> Not to be inflamatory, but the SRFI process is in part a response to
> the unanimous RnRS process which severely restricts forward motion.
> It is bad style to finalize an SRFI without concensus, but its hard to
> say at this point whether we have a majority concensus.

A majority is not consensus.

> We have, so far, Oleg, myself, Taylor, and Matthias for continued
> discussion towards correction of concrete issues, vs yourself, Tom,
> and Ray against.  This is why I want more opinions.  I'm especially
> wanting to hear informed opinions from implementors and respected
> members of the Scheme community.

Here's my opinion: Please withdraw this SRFI and re-present it when it
actually conforms to the requirements for a SRFI. Please pay special
attention to the requirement that outline implementations must be
obvious to implement, and they must have a particularly compelling
rationale.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd