Anton van Straaten wrote:
>>> However, this SRFI was already way over the alloted draft period.  I
>>> don't know the history of that - if there's a procedural problem, it
>>> should have been addressed a long time ago.  But it doesn't make
>>> much sense to me to suddenly start calling for withdrawal ....

> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> In business, that's called "throwing good money after bad." In
>> parenting, it's called "two wrongs don't make a right."

> I don't think analogies are helpful here.

Mea culpa; I tend to think in analogies.

> But if it makes you happy: if you drive a car off the road, you have
> to do some more offroad driving to get back on the road.  Turns out
> two wrongs *do* make a right, after all.

Granted -- you may be right.

>> I realize that you're trying to be tactful and diplomatic and offer a
>> compromise here, but it won't help, because your compromise just
>> undermines the process even more.

> It wasn't intended as a compromise - it's an observation about what I
> think is right.  I'm not suggesting that the draft period be extended
> indefinitely, only that the situation be dealt with fairly.  I don't
> accept that this undermines the process.

Understood, and agreed. I wasn't trying to put pressure on the author,
but I can see how it came across that way. Mainly, I'm a bit flustered,
because I keep getting challenged to back up criticisms, even after
explaining them in detail. I do this kind of stuff for a living, and in
my ten years of experience as a reviewer, I've *never* seen an author
get so defensive during a review.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd