> 1. While I don't subscribe to the statements about the many "obvious"
> problems of the SRFI process, I welcome the creation of a place where
> a community can be gathered to discuss libraries and other
> Scheme-related issues outside of the SRFI process.  This can even
> benefit the SRFI process because it can also play the role of an
> incubator for new proposals.

Indeed! I'd be very happy if proposals from Scheme Review are fed into
SRFI where appropriate.

This means people who only have time for late-stage work can subscribe
only to SRFI, and people who want to explore can subscribe to both.

I'd expect there to be a lot of overlap between the people who
contribute to each. It's certainly not any kind of competition.

> 2. The SRFI process is essential for increasing portability.  The SRFI
> process is probably the best way to make a yet unportable feature
> portable by encouraging Scheme implementations to adopt it.
> (Therefore, the portability of a sample implementation is less
> important than that it must show that the feature is implementable.)
> But even SRFIs that consist basically of a portable library together
> with a description of its API help portability in the sense that it is
> much easier to read code written by others and contribute to it if the
> code is written using "standardized" idioms or procedures.

Agreed on all counts.