Register to vote

[oxyd...@gmail.com]

Hi,

this registration thing is nonsense. Anyone who knows about the existence of the voting ballots clearly already has an interest in Scheme. If the purpose is to prevent double-votes from some people, it's all too easy to make up a bunch of introductory emails, so it doesn't prevent that either.

Having said that, I've been working on an R7RS Small implementation in my free time for a while now, and it's slowly nearing to completion: https://gitlab.com/Oxyd/insider-scheme . In addition to that, I've found and reported a few bugs in Chibi. On the not-quite-Scheme side of things, I've used Racket to implement a few scripts to scrape data from various websites and I've been quite pleased with Racket for that purpose.

I also like to idle in the Libera IRC channel, and join the conversation there from time to time. I figured it might be a good time to start offering opinions here as well, such as the one on the registration process above.

Ondřej Majerech

[John Cowan]

On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 1:39 PM oxyd...@gmail.com <oxyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

this registration thing is nonsense. Anyone who knows about the existence of the voting ballots clearly already has an interest in Scheme. If the purpose is to prevent double-votes from some people, it's all too easy to make up a bunch of introductory emails, so it doesn't prevent that either.

I believe the point is to prevent people from stuffing the ballot by getting their friends to vote in a pre-arranged way, even though the friends know and care nothing about Scheme.  We can't entirely prevent that, but a bunch of very similar registrations from people we have never heard of would certainly be suspicious.

(Could the people who voted as "Alice P. Hacker", "Sam", and "" please either register here or contact me privately by email to reassure me of their bona fides?  Thanks. (It's "Alyssa", anyway.))

 

Having said that, I've been working on an R7RS Small implementation in my free time for a while now, and it's slowly nearing to completion: https://gitlab.com/Oxyd/insider-scheme 

Congratulations, thank you, and please do vote!

[Arthur A. Gleckler]

On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 10:39 AM oxyd...@gmail.com <oxyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

this registration thing is nonsense. Anyone who knows about the existence of the voting ballots clearly already has an interest in Scheme. If the purpose is to prevent double-votes from some people, it's all too easy to make up a bunch of introductory emails, so it doesn't prevent that either.

 

I can understand your skepticism, but it would be better if you expressed it politely.

Also, see Chesterton's Fence (also through Wikipedia).

[oxyd...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 20:43:44 UTC+1 a...@speechcode.com wrote:

On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 10:39 AM oxyd...@gmail.com <oxyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

this registration thing is nonsense. Anyone who knows about the existence of the voting ballots clearly already has an interest in Scheme. If the purpose is to prevent double-votes from some people, it's all too easy to make up a bunch of introductory emails, so it doesn't prevent that either.

 

I can understand your skepticism, but it would be better if you expressed it politely.

I did. If you consider disagreement impolite, then we'll have a hard time with each other. 

 

Also, see Chesterton's Fence (also through Wikipedia).

Certainly agreed with that. But I'm not reforming anything here. I'm making an observation, and it's up to whoever else to make – or not make – a reform based on that. 

[Arthur A. Gleckler]

On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 12:46 PM oxyd...@gmail.com <oxyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

I can understand your skepticism, but it would be better if you expressed it politely.

I did. If you consider disagreement impolite, then we'll have a hard time with each other. 

Calling it "nonsense" is hardly polite.

[Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen]

I would advise not to overrate it. In one social culture, "nonsense" is understood as rude; in a different social culture, "nonsense" is understood as refreshingly frank. We all have different social-cultural backgrounds and email is a bad medium anyway when compared to face time, so let's try not to read too much between the lines (as hard as it is).

For example, more than once I have expressed my doubts about the voting process, especially about the fact that many distinct, detailed, and intermediate decisions are based on an upwardly-open, ever-changing body of voters most of who are not directly involved in envisioning, crafting, or discussing the specifications and who are not united by a common vision of where the language should head. I don't think I called the participation and voting system "nonsense" but if I had called it that way, I would have meant exactly the same and wouldn't have tried to be impolite. (Of course, not!)

Just my thoughts, of course.

Marc

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "scheme-reports-wg2" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scheme-reports-...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scheme-reports-wg2/CALnw4LJLGA2m%2BMqSHytDjGURNEtiw_pg-1J_H5F31BqbLKCRtw%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Cowan]

On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 4:48 AM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <marc....@gmail.com> wrote:

I would advise not to overrate it. In one social culture, "nonsense" is understood as rude; in a different social culture, "nonsense" is understood as refreshingly frank.

It doesn't trouble me, either; it is an attack on the design, not the people who made it ("attack not men but measures").  See also <https://wiki.c2.com/?FidonetRules>: don't be excessively annoying; don't be easily annoyed. 

 

We all have different social-cultural backgrounds and email is a bad medium anyway when compared to face time, so let's try not to read too much between the lines (as hard as it is).

Alas, it is unavoidable.  An American anthropologist specializing in non-verbal human communication with the highly appropriate name of Ray Birdwhistell estimated that only 30% of the information exchanged in a face-to-face conversation is carried by the words alone.  But that is all the more reason to be cautious.  

 

especially about the fact that many distinct, detailed, and intermediate decisions are based on an upwardly-open, ever-changing body of voters most of who are not directly involved in envisioning, crafting, or discussing the specifications and who are not united by a common vision of where the language should head. 

I don't wish to restart that discussion, but I will say that to me this description is more appropriate to a design-from-scratch committee than to a ratification committee, which is what WG2 is.

[Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen]

Am So., 5. Dez. 2021 um 23:41 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <co...@ccil.org>:

 

especially about the fact that many distinct, detailed, and intermediate decisions are based on an upwardly-open, ever-changing body of voters most of who are not directly involved in envisioning, crafting, or discussing the specifications and who are not united by a common vision of where the language should head. 

I don't wish to restart that discussion, but I will say that to me this description is more appropriate to a design-from-scratch committee than to a ratification committee, which is what WG2 is.

It may very well be that my objections and doubts are no more appropriate than going to a vegetarian restaurant and telling the cook that his meals would be better with meat.

That said, my vision is that of a committee of committed members that gets initially input from the Scheme community, then develops a conception based on this input and based on what's already there, crafts a coherent standard draft to be ratified in total, and finally submits it to a ratification committee (which can be the whole Scheme community). Optimally, not a single draft but variations of a draft (e.g. in terms of the number of mandatory features) are submitted so that the ratification committee has a choice. The important point is that each of the submitted drafts in itself would be coherent.

[Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide]

Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <marc....@gmail.com> writes:

> That said, my vision is that of a committee of committed members that
> gets initially input from the Scheme community,

This sounds like the SRFI process, which is an important input to R7RS
large.

> then develops a conception based on this input and based on what's
> already there, crafts a coherent standard draft to be ratified in
> total,

This sounds like what we’re trying to do right now, if I understand it
right.

> and finally submits it to a ratification committee (which can be the
> whole Scheme community). Optimally, not a single draft but variations
> of a draft (e.g. in terms of the number of mandatory features) are
> submitted so that the ratification committee has a choice. The
> important point is that each of the submitted drafts in itself would
> be coherent.

I guess this is what will happen when it comes to adoption of R7RS
large. I don’t see a structure for this part yet.

Best wishes,
Arne
--
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein,
ohne es zu merken.
draketo.de

[John Cowan]

On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 9:29 AM Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide <arne...@web.de> wrote:

 

Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <marc....@gmail.com> writes:

> That said, my vision is that of a committee of committed members that
> gets initially input from the Scheme community,

This sounds like the SRFI process, which is an important input to R7RS
large. 

Indeed, almost all the planned components of R7RS-large are either SRFIs or parts of R6RS.  The only exception so far is explicit renaming.

> then develops a conception based on this input and based on what's
> already there, crafts a coherent standard draft to be ratified in
> total,

This sounds like what we’re trying to do right now, if I understand it
right.

It depends on what "coherent" means.  If it means "100% consistent", then it isn't going to happen.  The R7RS-large process has been going on for 12 years now, and the SRFI process on which it is based for twice as long.  The volume of technical prose already voted in is huge, bigger than any standard I know of except CL, and will probably grow to be bigger than CL.

> and finally submits it to a ratification committee (which can be the
> whole Scheme community). Optimally, not a single draft but variations
> of a draft (e.g. in terms of the number of mandatory features) are
> submitted so that the ratification committee has a choice. The
> important point is that each of the submitted drafts in itself would
> be coherent.

I guess this is what will happen when it comes to adoption of R7RS
large. I don’t see a structure for this part yet.

I plan to have a *minimal* cleanup phase when we get to the end, but not to have a final ratification pass.  What is voted for now goes into the standard.  As for multiple "coherent" drafts, the community barely has the spoons (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoon_theory>) to manage a single, admittedly imperfect, draft.

[Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen]

Am Mi., 15. Dez. 2021 um 16:38 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <co...@ccil.org>:

On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 9:29 AM Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide <arne...@web.de> wrote:

 

Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <marc....@gmail.com> writes:

> That said, my vision is that of a committee of committed members that
> gets initially input from the Scheme community,

This sounds like the SRFI process, which is an important input to R7RS
large. 

Indeed, almost all the planned components of R7RS-large are either SRFIs or parts of R6RS.  The only exception so far is explicit renaming.

> then develops a conception based on this input and based on what's
> already there, crafts a coherent standard draft to be ratified in
> total,

This sounds like what we’re trying to do right now, if I understand it
right.

It depends on what "coherent" means.  If it means "100% consistent", then it isn't going to happen.  The R7RS-large process has been going on for 12 years now, and the SRFI process on which it is based for twice as long.  The volume of technical prose already voted in is huge, bigger than any standard I know of except CL, and will probably grow to be bigger than CL.

100% consistent is an ideal, which is never going to happen in practice.  Replace this with "mostly consistent".  And that is not ensured by the SRFI process.  Each SRFI in itself is (or should be) a coherent piece of work; a language that is built from individually voting on SRFIs by an ever-changing body of voters not necessarily so.

If it is just about size, R7RS-large will do well.

 

> and finally submits it to a ratification committee (which can be the
> whole Scheme community). Optimally, not a single draft but variations
> of a draft (e.g. in terms of the number of mandatory features) are
> submitted so that the ratification committee has a choice. The
> important point is that each of the submitted drafts in itself would
> be coherent.

I guess this is what will happen when it comes to adoption of R7RS
large. I don’t see a structure for this part yet.

I plan to have a *minimal* cleanup phase when we get to the end, but not to have a final ratification pass.  What is voted for now goes into the standard.  As for multiple "coherent" drafts, the community barely has the spoons (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoon_theory>) to manage a single, admittedly imperfect, draft.

With variations of a draft, I meant a single draft with a coherent set of switches.

Marc

[John Cowan]

On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 11:31 AM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen

100% consistent is an ideal, which is never going to happen in practice.  Replace this with "mostly consistent".  And that is not ensured by the SRFI process.

Nor is it ensured by any other process that I know of.  Here is an allegory:

A sailboat requires two things to make it go: a sail to increase thrust to go forward, and an anchor (often a sea-anchor) to increase drag so that you don't go too far or too fast.  I and certain other people (I do not give myself the right to name them) are the sail: our job is to keep this process going somehow so that it does not succumb to the Curse of Lisp <http://www.winestockwebdesign.com/Essays/Lisp_Curse.html>.

Other people (again I do not name them) constitute the anchor, keeping the sail from becoming too grandiose and capsizing or running onto the rocks. Indeed to some extent I am part of the anchor, making sure that compatibility, not just to the letter of R7RS-small but also as far as practicable to its spirit, is consistently respected.

The sailboat also needs a keel and rudder if you intend to go somewhere in particular.  The role of that is held by the various dockets linked from <https://github.com/johnwcowan/r7rs-work/edit/master/WG2Dockets.md>.  Our destination is far from being well-charted, but it is not past the known edge of the world any more.

End of allegory.

 

If it is just about size, R7RS-large will do well.

No, indeed.  There are plenty of SRFIs that aren't even docketed, though new ones are still being added.  Otherwise we would have spent approximately forever in analysis paralysis.