> OK, this took /some/ time, but I now finished to read through the
> complete discussion and to take some notes while doing so. You can find
> the attempt of a summary in this
> <https://gist.github.com/FrankRuben/13856dbc63480884a9dcb6ad66fc074d>
> gist - I hope that the content won't hurt anyone's feelings and that it
> doesn't have gross omissions. And while writing that: my sincere respect
> to the work done here, and not only to the technical work but also to
> that most civil discussion - starting from opposing ends in places and
> working to a common approach with no friction, that's impressive.

Thank you very much for the kind words and for excellent diligence. That
is a terrific summary! I'm sure nobody's feelings were hurt, quite the
opposite :)

> In case the notes might be useful, please reply with corrections and/or
> a proposal where to best post them; if not, no harm done - writing them
> down already helped me.

Everything seems fine to me.

> Two more questions:
>
> a) If I didn't miss it, the option to use Racket's types or contracts
> has not been mentioned when discussing the potential formats of type
> signatures. Not only are both syntaxes field tested, but even if Racket
> is no longer Racket Scheme, it should still be possible to "steal" some
> of Racket's definitions for the purpose discussed here.

Yeah, I recently worked with Racket a bit thought the same. They have
put a lot of effort into their type annotations. If we end up not using
those, we should at the very least have a good rationale.

> b) Any concrete item where I can support now? Time is limited as for
> anyone, but for any concrete task I can at least check whether I would
> be able to help. Otherwise I'll go through the repo and check for
> options based on the current status.

Thank you very much for offering to help. Sorry again for the delay in
answering. I've been thinking about several big problems for about a
week (mostly not related to documentation) and have needed to take a lot
of "hammock time" to work on them
(<https://melreams.com/2017/05/rich-hickey-hammock-driven-development/>).

The SRFI markup project quieted down after that long discussion because
we are waiting for Ciprian's exploration of clean structured XHTML
markup. I.e. eventually converting all finalized SRFIs (i.e. the SRFI's
"status" is "final") into to use the XHTML same structure. He has been
quite busy this last month so he hasn't had time to work on it yet, but
should resume fairly soon. We don't really have anything useful to do
while waiting for the results of that experiment so we started working
on other, unrelated things (writing some SRFIs and libraries, looking at
how to aggregate documentation from Scheme implementations, etc.) This
is one small project that was just kicked off:
<https://github.com/schemeweb> and we have a mailing list about that
(but it's quite inactive right now as well, people are working on many
things...)

Scheme development is somewhat scattered because there is a lot to do
and there's just recently been lots of new activity, so we don't yet
have a good idea of how to organize all the new things.