Poll for next meeting time

[Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe]

Hi all,

I've made a time poll for the mid-April meeting:

https://terminplaner6.dfn.de/en/p/6a7a0cce5d9fa92dff25a54fdd7175d8-1691169

Please fill in your preferred time slots. Thanks.

Wolfgang

--
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <w...@sigwinch.xyz>

[Zhu Zihao]

Hi, Wolfang and others.

I'm planning to move to a new city soon, so I afraid that I won't be
able to promise a specific time within the time range in the poll. This
also means that I will most likely be absent from next meeting.

I'm sorry about this. Once we released the agenda, I will reply to the
email with my thoughts on these topics.
--
Retrieve my PGP public key:
执行下列命令以获取我的 PGP 公有密钥：

gpg --recv-keys B3EBC086AB0EBC0F45E0B4D433DB374BCEE4D9DC

Zihao / 閱卜錄

[Alaric Snell-Pym]

On 08/04/2026 03:59, Zhu Zihao wrote:

> I'm planning to move to a new city soon, so I afraid that I won't be
> able to promise a specific time within the time range in the poll. This
> also means that I will most likely be absent from next meeting.
>
> I'm sorry about this. Once we released the agenda, I will reply to the
> email with my thoughts on these topics.

I hope your move goes well! I'll get that agenda made up ASAP :-)

Thanks,

--
Alaric Snell-Pym (M0KTN neé M7KIT)
http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/

[Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe]

On 2026-04-08 10:59 +0800, Zhu Zihao wrote:
> I'm planning to move to a new city soon, so I afraid that I won't be
> able to promise a specific time within the time range in the poll. This
> also means that I will most likely be absent from next meeting.

No problem! I hope moving goes smoothly.

--
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <w...@sigwinch.xyz>

[Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe]

Hi all, and sorry for the wait. Eight members have filled out the
poll and there seems to be no meeting time that works for everyone.
How should we proceed? The only times which could possibly accomodate
all but one member are

* April 16th at 13:00 UTC (AAG marked "no", PHM marked "maybe")

* April 20th at 17:00 UTC (ASP (acting chair) "no", but everyone
else "yes")

* April 23rd at 17:00 UTC (PHM "maybe", Vincent "no", ASP "maybe")

With the other slots (see the poll) we'll lack at least two members.

--
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <w...@sigwinch.xyz>

[Peter McGoron]

To contextualize:

April 16th at 13:00 UTC is a 90% "yes" for me.

April 23rd at 17:00 UTC is a 50% "yes".

-- Peter McGoron

[Arthur A. Gleckler]

I can make 16 Apr 13:00 UTC.  It's 6am, so I was trying to avoid it, but I can definitely get up then.

[Alaric Snell-Pym]

On 13/04/2026 23:49, Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe wrote:
> Hi all, and sorry for the wait. Eight members have filled out the
> poll and there seems to be no meeting time that works for everyone.
> How should we proceed? The only times which could possibly accomodate
> all but one member are
>
> * April 16th at 13:00 UTC (AAG marked "no", PHM marked "maybe")
>
> * April 20th at 17:00 UTC (ASP (acting chair) "no", but everyone
> else "yes")

I can still make an agenda if somebody else wants to help us stick to it
on the day (and I won't be offended if they change the agenda either - I
offer to make it in order to help, not in order to dictate); I'm
teaching some teenagers basic blacksmithing then so definitely can't
make it, I'm afraid.

[Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe]

On 2026-04-13 17:50 -0700, Arthur A. Gleckler wrote:
> I can make 16 Apr 13:00 UTC. It's 6am, so I was trying to avoid it, but I
> can definitely get up then.

If you can be there for at least part of the meeeting, and if Peter
hits his 90%, then April 16 13:00 seems like our best option--we'll
have everybody who responded.

Is that too soon for everyone, or shall we make it this Thursday?

--
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <w...@sigwinch.xyz>

[Peter McGoron]

OK with me.

-- Peter McGoron

[Sudarshan S Chawathe]

Ditto for me.

-chaw

[Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe]

OK, Thursday at 13 UTC it is! I look forward to talking to you
all soon.

--
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <w...@sigwinch.xyz>

[Alaric Snell-Pym]

On 15/04/2026 00:27, Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe wrote:
> OK, Thursday at 13 UTC it is! I look forward to talking to you
> all soon.

I'll get an agenda sorted in the usual place ASAP! Which will probably
be Thursday morning as this evening is a little busy.

Looking forward,

[Peter McGoron]

Some notes/ideas for the agenda:

1. Advisory time limits for each item, to make sure that we don't spin
our wheels on some topic for too long and miss the other topics. They
would not be hard limits, if it's worth it to continue discussion we should.

2. DPK has listed some things to ballot
<https://codeberg.org/scheme/r7rs/src/branch/main/FOUNDATIONS.txt#L98>:
if we have something we don't have consensus on or expect to be
controversial, we could ballot it.

-- Peter McGoron

[Alaric Snell-Pym]

On 15/04/2026 18:03, 'Peter McGoron' via scheme-reports-wg2 wrote:
> Some notes/ideas for the agenda:
>
> 1. Advisory time limits for each item, to make sure that we don't spin
> our wheels on some topic for too long and miss the other topics. They
> would not be hard limits, if it's worth it to continue discussion we
> should.

Yeah, I've been thinking about this. The question is, do we want to
interrupt a discussion that's being productive? I think the discussion
can leave the productive phase in one of three ways:

1. We come to a conclusion! Yay! It's obvious we can move on now!

2. We can't come to a conclusion because we have open questions, people
need to go and have a think / do some research / ask others. This isn't
always so obvious to spot and can be mistaken for the next one, but I
think the correct solution is to be aware and call it out if it is,
proposing homework and moving on.

3. We're just talking in circles, the conversation is stale and we can't
achieve even approximate consensus. This is probably case (2) - we can
go and do some homework and come back with fresh viewpoints - but it
might just be a genuinely undecidable bikeshed-paint-colour question.

(1) self-terminates, (2) needs to terminate as soon as we identify the
situation, (3) is rarer (thankfully!) and might benefit from just taking
a break and coming back to it with fresh eyes. So I feel that hitting a
timeout is most useful as a chance to reflect on whether we've hit case
(2) or (3), or are just still productively chatting (case 0?).

> 2. DPK has listed some things to ballot <https://codeberg.org/scheme/
> r7rs/src/branch/main/FOUNDATIONS.txt#L98>: if we have something we don't
> have consensus on or expect to be controversial, we could ballot it.

Noted!

Ok, I've put up an agenda - focussing on procedural matters I think we
should clear up and then getting back to the technical grit - and we
proposed timeouts! Let's see how that goes!

https://codeberg.org/scheme/r7rs/wiki/Agenda+2026-04-16.-

>
> -- Peter McGoron