Scheme Foundation
Lassi Kortela
(02 Oct 2024 15:12 UTC)
|
Re: Scheme Foundation
Arthur A. Gleckler
(02 Oct 2024 15:21 UTC)
|
Re: Scheme Foundation
Antero Mejr
(02 Oct 2024 17:11 UTC)
|
Re: Scheme Foundation
Lassi Kortela
(02 Oct 2024 17:46 UTC)
|
Re: Scheme Foundation
Daphne Preston-Kendal
(02 Oct 2024 18:46 UTC)
|
Re: Scheme Foundation
Antero Mejr
(02 Oct 2024 19:04 UTC)
|
Re: Scheme Foundation
Lassi Kortela
(02 Oct 2024 19:52 UTC)
|
Re: Scheme Foundation
Antero Mejr
(02 Oct 2024 22:39 UTC)
|
Re: Scheme Foundation
Lassi Kortela
(03 Oct 2024 06:38 UTC)
|
Re: Scheme Foundation
MSavoritias
(03 Oct 2024 07:25 UTC)
|
Re: Scheme Foundation
chohag@xxxxxx
(03 Oct 2024 10:31 UTC)
|
Hub and spokes
Lassi Kortela
(03 Oct 2024 12:48 UTC)
|
Re: Hub and spokes MSavoritias (04 Oct 2024 10:29 UTC)
|
Re: Hub and spokes
chohag@xxxxxx
(04 Oct 2024 12:12 UTC)
|
Re: Hub and spokes
MSavoritias
(04 Oct 2024 10:31 UTC)
|
Re: Scheme Foundation
Arthur A. Gleckler
(02 Oct 2024 20:14 UTC)
|
Re: Scheme Foundation
Antero Mejr
(02 Oct 2024 22:13 UTC)
|
Re: Scheme Foundation
Vladimir Nikishkin
(03 Oct 2024 06:42 UTC)
|
Lassi Kortela kirjoitti 3.10.2024 klo 15.48: >> You will have a hierarchy whether you like it or not. The question >> here seems to be whether you will design one formally and explicitly >> or keep the informal ad-hoc hierarchy that is in place at the moment. > > I believe Scheme's organizational problems are solved by hub-and-spoke > models where the spokes are opinionated and the hub is neutral. > > SRFI is like this. Authors are opinionated; the Editor is neutral. > > Scheme.org has a neutral kernel and the subdomains are (very mildly) > opinionated. More broadly, other Scheme websites are opinionated and > scheme.org should be like a sum or an average of those opinions. > > RnRS should have Scheme implementers as spokes and a neutral mediator > as the hub. R6RS and R7RS divided the community because the hub was > opinionated. R7RS-large attempts to be more neutral. > > Most people find it hard to be neutral in a position where money and > influence are up for grabs. While we could take pains to create a > neutral Foundation, I expect it will disproportionately attract > self-serving people. Keeping RnRS neutral, where everyone operates at > a financial loss, has already proven to be an almost inhuman feat. > > Antero points out that Scheme projects tend to have a low truck > number, but so does any position requiring impartiality. Few have what > it takes. It's best not to multiply such positions without a good > reason to do so. > > From a hierarchy standpoint, a hub-and-spokes model has the advantage > that it is very flat. Most programmers love this. An issue is that the > burden of communication falls on the hub. This person has to be a good > communicator with strong empathy. Arthur has done a great job with SRFI. I don't have an opinion here and I mostly agree in preferring non-formal (as in legal) organizations. The burden is less and the dynamics are more neutral. I do agree with Antero that the current status quo does not work tho. And I disagree that the current model is flat. The current model is very much a meritocracy (as in privileged - people that have the benefit of time and knowledge) in all the bad ways. And yeah personally I am not a programmer that likes meritocracy. That said I do not have the energy to go into this as I am occupied with other collectives atm and my own projects. So feel free to disregard :) MSavoritias