"Bradd W. Szonye" <xxxxxx@szonye.com> writes:

>>> This SRFI attempts to use the SRFI process to change the SRFI process
>>> itself.  That risks further damage to the SRFI process, which is
>>> again much more important than this SRFI.  That is a major issue.
>
>> The editor doesn't seem to think so.
>
> Yes, that's very disappointing. That too damages the SRFI process in my
> opinion -- what's the point in publishing requirements if you're not
> going to follow them?

Allow me to clarify my position.  There are two opposing ideas
regarding the open issues in SRFI-44:

   1. Scott et al. say they are *minor* issues.
   2. Bradd et al. say they are *major* issues.

If they are indeed minor issues, then extending the draft period is
not unprecedented.  If they are not, then you are correct we should
follow the withdrawal procedure to allow further discussion.

I'm siding with Scott because, after all, he *is* the author and he
thinks the issues are minor, and that the SRFI is very close to match
the final product he has in mind.

There has been questions about the SRFI not conforming to the process
(dependencies, conflicts, etc.), and I accuse myself of missing those.
Please blame the poor editing, not the process, which I don't believe
is being damaged by this case.

One last thing, we are extending the draft period until November the
28th, and Scott will have to decide then what to do.

--Francisco