Francisco Solsona wrote:
> 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.

OK, that makes sense.

> 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.

Scott and I have been talking past each other on this point. I try to
classify issues as "major" or "minor" based on these criteria:

    major   becomes a defect if it isn't fixed before release
    minor   becomes an inconvenience if it isn't fixed

I think Scott uses them like this:

    major   fundamental problems with the design
    minor   isolated problems in the implementation

Unfortunately, I'm not entirely consistent, so I've probably switched
between the two meanings myself. I do believe that there are defects in
the design and the implementation both, although it's a bit difficult to
separate the two, given the nature of the proposal (which is more design
than implementation).

> 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.

OK, that makes me feel better.

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

Sounds reasonable.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd