One last reply before I excuse myself.

> SRFIs de facto are "language development bits".

Yes, ideally.

> The place for "Scheme Review", as far as I can see, would be the
> "portable world".

The main point is a social process for exploration. As long as the
technical content has something to do with Scheme, it's OK.

In practice, most of it would indeed be portable code.

> So, Scheme Review, which could be a place where I could upload my code
> (to me, at least, it would be nice if on "Scheme Review" code would
> matter more than prose), and have it scrutinised by more seasoned
> schemers certainly would be nice. Even nicer would be if the "seasoned
> schemers" could help packaging that code into a portable-ish library.

Exactly. Scheme is a fantastic community for code review in general.

> 1. Reddit is blocked in half of the world, and is in general a
> US-style social network, prone to political process in the US.
> 2. Reddit has no tools for working with code.
>
> Why is Planet Scheme not good for this?
> 1. Planet Scheme is one-directional.

Agreed.

> Why is Github "scheme-organization" not good for that?
> 1. Inconvenient interface, generally aimed at achieving a different goal.
>
> I would say, (if I may have the temerity to suggest how someone should
> spend their volunteering efforts), that
> in order for "Scheme Review" to succeed, it needs to have:
> 1. A convenient interface. Gitea is a nice start, as it has the tools
> to work with code, but maybe some other reviewing software would be
> better.
> 2. A clear social contract. Who is contributing what and getting what
> in response. As in 'submitters are getting their code reviewed,
> reviewers are getting a chance to improve their guiding skills, as
> well as learn new ideas, the community is getting more high-quality
> libraries'. Yes, you may have to spend time implementing "badges"
> (although, preferably, not StackOverflow style of "points grinding").
> 2.1. An in-depth tutorial for the really dumb (like me), on how the
> process works step by step. In many languages! I am ready to
> contribute a Russian, and a Chinese translation, but please, make the
> text good. I think we are missing a huge lot of excellent contribution
> from outside of the Anglosphere, because we are not catering to
> non-native speakers. Make it clear that you are happy to help with
> translating their proposals into English, or editing their drafts.
> (Which, I can also volunteer to do.)
> 3. If possible, integration with snow-fort, akku.scm and the github
> scheme organisation. Yes, I understand that the output of the review
> process might not necessarily be a library, but I would still
> recommend aiming low first, with the perspective of growing high
> later.

It's too early for the above. Let's try to find a few people first :)

IMHO a review site should not concern itself with other things, such as
how to ship code. Not even SRFI has an opinion on that; each sample
implementation is just files, deployed however the author wants.

But in practice, if Git repos are used it'll be easy to hook those up to
a package manager. So the review repo can double as the library source
repo. This might turn out well. Write a library, with code review by
experienced schemers at your fingertips. Sounds quite attractive to me,
and beats working away alone on GitHub. Definitely worth trying!

> 4. Social work. This point may be not as fundamental as the first
> three, but just announcing something and proposing a single document
> for discussion is not really enough. Try to understand who are the
> people who might contribute to the process, both as reviewers, and as
> submitters, and contact them personally. This might even sound
> sinister, but make a list of people who, you suspect, might have
> something useful for the common cause and try to reach out to them
> personally. Maybe that is not going to be needed forever, but would
> help with the bootstrap.

Indeed.

> If anything, you can try to distinguish between the Review and the
> SRFI process as the opposition between the MIT and the Berkeley
> approaches. "Make good from the start" is good for the most
> foundational level of the ecosystem (i.e. the Scheme Systems, Scheme
> Base, if you wish), or the SRFI level, while "make it just good" would
> be the attitude of the Review process.
>
> Again, I am trying not to sound too critical, but the Scheme world has
> enough centripetal forces which make the community look like a daisy
> with three quarters of the petals dried away. If you want to make it
> look like a tree rather than a daisy, you have to make sure that you
> are directing at least the interested parts of the community in the
> common direction, rather than away from the trunk. If "Scheme Review"
> dilutes the SRFI community, it will be a failure. If it collects the
> scattered droplets into a joint river, it will be a success.

Good analogies IMHO.