I'm not exactly sure how it would look like but I'm all in to have other
people send some interesting code they wrote that you can test and comment.
I would love to see different experiments written in Scheme that do something
cool in Scheme. I don't code much scheme recently this would motivate me to
write more. With my limited experience with latest SRFI I'm not that exited
and motivate to write code.

The problem with SFRI is that they are a bit like islands one person write
one and other comment. Also it's hard to follow discussion. If you see how
JavaScript TC39 do it's proposals everything is public on GitHub you don't
need to subscribe to each SRFI via mailing list ot see discussion and it's
hard to actually participate in the process that is basically created by one
person. It would be great if you have something like experiments where
someone show cool thing written in Scheme some new syntax or something and
people can comment.

So it will be more like RFC (Request for Comments), this is how ReactJS
library from Facebook is proposing new features. They write proposal on
GitHub as issue and other people comment. It need to be something where you
can easy participate. I think that most developers have GitHub account so
using GitHub for this is good idea.

But it can be a website. But what I would like to have is RSS feed of the RFC
and comments system based on GitHub. There are nice two OSS project that use
issues and discussion on the repo as comments in different pages. So whole
thing doesn't require a server. Creating RFC can be added as PR to repo
(clear instruction need to be added to website that explain how to add one)

Those are two systems:
https://github.com/giscus/giscus
https://github.com/utterance/utterances

I like better giscus becasue you can use issues for different purpose.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 20:16:23 +0200
Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io> wrote:

> A lot of commentary has been given in the last few years, both on and
> off the SRFI lists, about the increasing use of the SRFI process for
> experimental libraries. It has been repeatedly observed that the process
> does not work well for this purpose.
>
> We keep submitting experimental work to SRFI since it's the singular
> Scheme institution where authors can get wide exposure and high quality
> peer review for their work.
>
> Scheme has several package managers that work well for shipping code.
> But those don't fill in the social aspect where SRFI excels.
>
> Therefore I propose that we start a new institution, Scheme Review, for
> peer review of code and specifications of all kinds.
>
> Scheme Review would have the social structure of SRFI, but without the
> deadlines and the focus on "Requests for Implementation". You could send
> anything from half-baked code snippets to polished long-form documents.
> Individual people could make recommendations on the fitness of the
> submitted artifacts for various purposes, but the process itself would
> not be constrained around such a goal.
>
> Our earlier experiment to take the load off SRFI was to start the
> https://github.com/pre-srfi organization. It was a limited success
> (spawning several proper SRFIs and lots of good drafting and discussion)
> but the volume of work and discussion has gradually died down. The thing
> it's missing from SRFI is rhythm. We made commits to git at our leisure,
> which people usually didn't pick up on.
>
> The pace at SRFI has stayed relatively constant, perhaps because the
> process itself keeps pace. Authors have to put together formal drafts,
> which are announced to all. These announcements trickle in at intervals,
> so readers grow accustomed to a familiar rhythm. Scheme Review would
> keep this structure of iterating on drafts, but without the deadlines.
>
> Would anybody interested in trying out this experiment? If so, we could
> start review.scheme.org and set up a mailing list or web forum to get it
> going. I don't know whether it will work out, but I think it's worth
> trying things to fill the needs that SRFI is struggling to accommodate.
>
> [I've mentioned in other threads a more general library design process.
> This isn't it; this is just free-form peer review.]

--
Jakub T. Jankiewicz, Senior Front-End Developer
https://jcubic.pl/me