On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 1:55 PM John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org> wrote:

I had been wanting to discuss this precise issue. When *is* it justified to issue a new draft based on changes to the SRFI? The only points I see clearly are that editorial corrections don't justify a draft, and backwards incompatible changes do, but there's a lot of space in between.

Arthur, you're the expert on this one.

I try to balance several concerns, including these:

Reader fatigue. Issuing drafts too often will tire out our volunteer reviewers, causing them to participate less. This is why I don't announce a new draft to correct typos, for example.
Divergence. If drafts fall too far behind the author's work, the discussion may focus on out-of-date material, wasting everyone's time.
Eagerness. Authors naturally want to get feedback on their latest work without waiting.
Correctness. Errors in finalized SRFIs should be corrected as quickly as possible.

I'm thrilled that we have as much participation as we do, and I want to keep that momentum going by keeping this balance right. If I'm doing anything wrong, please let me know.