+1

Am Mo., 24. Okt. 2022 um 20:37 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>:
>
> +1
>
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 5:30 AM Shiro Kawai <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2022 at 4:04 PM Arthur A. Gleckler <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The SRFI Errata process, documented here, used to say that the SRFI document could not be edited to reflect corrections unless the author specifically agreed to them. If the author couldn't be reached, we would just place a link in the Status section to a new page that would describe the recommended corrections.
>>>
>>> The SRFI process has been going on for twenty-four years now, and there are some practical considerations that have become more important over that time. In particular, it is sometimes the case that we can't get a reply from an author about proposed corrections even after months of trying. Because of that, I have changed the process to allow for consensus-based edits to the SRFI document when the author does not reply.
>>>
>>> It is still the case that only clear fixes to straightforward errors, not design mistakes, can be corrected this way. Broken APIs, for example, require a new SRFI.
>>>
>>> Thanks to everyone for their patience.