Scheme language standardization process
In what follows, I am speaking as an individual. My views may not coincide with those of the Scheme Language Steering Committee as a whole. Compatibility between the work products of WG1 and WG2 could be weakened from "must" to "should", but those who advocate that weakening should take the following into account. The word "must" constrains WG2 as much as WG1. In practice, it would probably constrain WG2 more than WG1, because WG1 is supposed to finish its work earlier than WG2, which would give WG1 whatever power might accrue from being the first to finish its semantics. It is of course possible that WG1 might fail to meet its schedule while WG2 meets its schedule, which would then put WG1 in the position of negotiating or conforming with a concrete proposal from WG2 instead of the other way around. It seems to me that one solution to that potential problem is to develop the sense of urgency and compromise needed to stay on schedule. Note also the section on "Coordination with Working Group N" and the provision for having some people belong to both working groups. I believe those provisions reflect the importance of compatibility between the work products produced by the two working groups, at least as judged by the Steering Committee. I also expect the chairs of the two working groups will work together to achieve the goal of compatibility. I would also point out that, even if "must" were changed to "should", the Steering Committee might not endorse work products (by either working group) that place unnecessary obstacles in the path of the other working group. Had the Steering Committee not believed compatibility between the work products to be delivered by WG1 and WG2 is technically feasible, it probably wouldn't have proposed draft charters that use the word "must" when mandating that compatibility. It seems to me that the perceived impossibility of achieving compatibility between the work products to be delivered by WG1 and WG2 derives from several questionable assumptions about the work products to be delivered by WG1. It also seems to me that some of those assumptions involve changes to the semantics of IEEE/ANSI/R5RS Scheme for which there may be little actual support within the Scheme community. If my impressions are correct, then leaving the word "must" in place might help to avoid fruitless attempts to use the WG1 process to mandate problematic changes to the semantics of Scheme. Will (speaking for himself) _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports