> If this is your goal, than why you think it will be different that pre-srfi.
> Do you think that more people will participate? What is the difference
> besides the name? And if it's the same than why don't use pre-srfi instead of
> creating another process?

Indeed, Scheme Review basically _is_ the successor of pre-SRFI.

Pre-SRFI was created to write early-stage proposals that are later
submitted to SRFI. We did not create any infrastructure for pre-SRFI
(e.g. a website, announcements, or archiving) because these things are
done by SRFI itself. It doesn't make sense to duplicate the effort.

It turned out that people want to write lots of SRFIs and even more
pre-SRFIs (https://github.com/pre-srfi has 50 repos). The SRFI process
is struggling to handle the current volume, and if even half of the
pre-SRFIs become SRFIs, then SRFI will struggle even more.

SRFIs, and by extension pre-SRFIs, have time pressure (either explicitly
or implicitly). They are not supposed to take too long to finish. It's
impossible for many of the current SRFIs and pre-SRFIs to be finished in
time.

A new, time-insensitive process has to be started. That's Scheme Review.
If we remove the goal of turning proposals into SRFIs, we remove the
time pressure. We are also free to accept a wider range of proposals
(e.g. surveys or comments on aesthetics - Scheme is possibly the most
aesthetically sensitive language community in existence).

So the infrastructure I propose for Scheme Review is basically a
combination of the SRFI and pre-SRFI infrastructure, as you note. Since
the goal no longer is to feed documents into SRFI, we need to duplicate
all the SRFI infrastructure.

However, it's a relief if we can get of mailing lists since email is
much more problematic than it used to be, and there are now much nicer
user interfaces for discussion.

Will more people participate? I don't know. Scheme Review is born out of
a need, not a wish, so it has to be tried even if it's likely to fail.

If you want to attract more people faster, by all means create
r/schemereview. The Lisp communities have a much longer time horizon
than typical language communities, so we rarely try to do things that
are an immediate success. (In immediate terms, Lisp on the whole is a
big failure compared to things like JavaScript.) We tend to focus on
projects that will make sense in 5-10 years or even longer. Like
Scheme.org, something like Scheme Review will be the right thing 10
years from now, and hopefully will have a beautiful back catalog of high
quality proposals going back many years. But in immediate terms, both
Scheme.org and Scheme Review are ugly websites with not enough content.
This mentality makes Lisp very difficult to explain to outsiders.