Thanks. A lot to digest. For now, I'll comment quickly on this part:

> 2) During the pre-R6 days, SRFIs took on an additional role - that of
> experiment on which the community as a whole debates. These are the ones
> that tend to be extended repeatedly, and are often withdrawn or reformed.

The Scheme community as a whole has not taken part in the voluminous
mailing list threads of the last 3-4 years. The most active implementer
has probably been Shiro from Gauche, with Per from Kawa and Marc Feeley
from Gambit commenting here and there. Of non-implementers, there has
also been a fairly constant, fairly small group. Per and Marc have
frequently called for a change of course.

SRFI (or RnRS) in its current form is not a Scheme-community-wide
debate. Perhaps before my time it was.

> This is a healthy means of discussion, implementation and standardisation, all in one, and that not everything can be resolved quickly - and not everything stands up to public review - is a mark of the process working, and working usefully.

I disagree that it's healthy. The fatigue that comes from the rigor of
the process, applied to sweeping problems, has been acknowledged even by
Arthur.