The old language in the SRFI process seemed to imply that, for quality reasons, the 90-day deadline is needed. I'm not at all convinced about this, so I like your new language better. I see that some kind of limit is useful because the more SRFIs in draft status, the bigger will the administrative overhead be.
In any case, I do not see time constraints as a major issue with the current SRFI process. The problem I see is that many SRFIs are discussed by far too few people. Moreover, the people that have been involved in discussing SRFIs only reflect a small part of the Scheme community. The R6RS process was blamed for this, but the same can probably be said about the current SRFI process. I haven't made any statistics but I have the strong feeling that the community was *much* more diverse during the first 50 or 100 SRFIs.
In a discussion about the inclusion of SRFI 88/89 to Chez, Kent Dybvig once wrote: "[...] SRFIs are not standards and are vetted, for the most part, only by people who are interested in the mechanism." I think this hits a nail on its head. Our reviewers are all biased. Who does review and examine thoroughly a SRFI they are not really interested in?
Marc