Draft statement on the SC election

[Daphne Preston-Kendal]

Here’s a first draft with the points we voted on today. I also added an extra paragraph about CoC enforcement.
<https://codeberg.org/scheme/r7rs/wiki/Statement-on-SC-Election>

Minutes etc. coming very soon – since there seemed to be an appetite for discussion of details of this in particular, I wanted to get it out for comments a.s.a.p.


Daphne

[Daphne Preston-Kendal]

I should perhaps add to this: I decided to leave out the discussion of the possibility of co-option up to five members (which we mentioned, but didn’t vote for or against including). The possibility of the SC doing this exists; the previous SC used it; we could no more take away that possibility than could the Parliament of England decide to take away its own sovereignty – there is simply no higher authority to enforce such a thing.


Daphne

[a...@speechcode.com]

It looks good to me, but I would like to see the section on regular status update meetings call for making public the minutes of the non-personal parts of meetings between the WG2 chair and the SC.

[Daphne Preston-Kendal]

On 9 Oct 2025, at 20:19, a...@speechcode.com <a...@speechcode.com> wrote:

> It looks good to me, but I would like to see the section on regular status update meetings call for making public the minutes of the non-personal parts of meetings between the WG2 chair and the SC.

Thanks for the reminder. I have added this.


Daphne

[Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen]

Thank you very much for writing this excellent text, Daphne. I have
just two comments/wishes:

(1) In "2. A chair", I would weaken or even better drop the "in
co-ordination with us". At this point, I wouldn't want to give the
impression that the working group may have special rights when it
comes to the SC. Apart from setting the process in motion and sending
out our statement, we should play and internalise the role of equals
among equals in the Scheme community. If we dilute the roles, there
would be the question why a Steering Committee is needed steering the
WG.

(2) Prior to our meeting, I mentioned that it could actually be a very
good idea, both politically and to reflect the technology, to name the
new language R8RS, marketed, among other things, as the reunion of
R6RS and R7RS. Now the draft statement mentions "R7RS Large" several
times. This is reasonable when one looks at the context where it
appears, but it may give the impression to Schemers not yet supporting
the endeavour we undertake here that we do not take R6RS and the
silent protest against the R7RS process from that camp seriously and
that a possible R8RS instead of R7RS large is outside of our
imagination. So, to clarify where we stand, I would like to have a
sentence saying something like that we would gladly continue to be the
WG should the SC decide to overhaul the charter and name the future
language differently, e.g. R8RS to reflect that reunification of R6RS
and R7RS is one goal. (I leave it to those who can do it better to
turn this into an catchy sentence that takes care of the issue.)

Marc

Am Do., 9. Okt. 2025 um 22:04 Uhr schrieb Daphne Preston-Kendal
<d...@nonceword.org>:

> --
> 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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scheme-reports-wg2/92B5E829-F752-4B16-A270-50F8E072F571%40nonceword.org.

[Daphne Preston-Kendal]

On 10 Oct 2025, at 16:48, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <marc....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you very much for writing this excellent text, Daphne. I have
> just two comments/wishes:
>
> (1) In "2. A chair", I would weaken or even better drop the "in
> co-ordination with us". At this point, I wouldn't want to give the
> impression that the working group may have special rights when it
> comes to the SC. Apart from setting the process in motion and sending
> out our statement, we should play and internalise the role of equals
> among equals in the Scheme community. If we dilute the roles, there
> would be the question why a Steering Committee is needed steering the
> WG.

I would like to hear from other people on the WG about this before making a change to the text.

Since the context is intended to suggest a range of options, make clear we would be open to working with the SC to pick a chair while leaving the choice of how to go about it entirely up to them, my view is that this is okay as it is.

> (2) Prior to our meeting, I mentioned that it could actually be a very
> good idea, both politically and to reflect the technology, to name the
> new language R8RS, marketed, among other things, as the reunion of
> R6RS and R7RS. Now the draft statement mentions "R7RS Large" several
> times. This is reasonable when one looks at the context where it
> appears, but it may give the impression to Schemers not yet supporting
> the endeavour we undertake here that we do not take R6RS and the
> silent protest against the R7RS process from that camp seriously and
> that a possible R8RS instead of R7RS large is outside of our
> imagination. So, to clarify where we stand, I would like to have a
> sentence saying something like that we would gladly continue to be the
> WG should the SC decide to overhaul the charter and name the future
> language differently, e.g. R8RS to reflect that reunification of R6RS
> and R7RS is one goal. (I leave it to those who can do it better to
> turn this into an catchy sentence that takes care of the issue.)

It is a happy accident that the ‘R7RS large’ name is only used in the text in this way – I didn’t intend it to be so.

I have argued before elsewhere that merely changing the name won’t change anything. You are right, though, that a name change alone might send a political signal. Unfortunately, I fear it would be a signal that would alienate the R5RS/R7RS small faction, more than it would be a signal to attract the R6RS faction. I would favour keeping the R7RS large name and making a language which passes R6RSers’ sniff test.

However, as with the previous issue you raised, this is only my own view. I would also like to hear from other people on the WG about this.


Daphne

[Martin Rodgers]

I'm strongly opposed to a name change. I like that I can write a
compiler for a subset of R7RS Small. "R8RS" sounds like a language
that supersedes R7RS entirely, Small, Large or subset of Small. It
sounds like a language with no subsets, which will make it harder to
implement. I fear that would alienate potential R8RS users and
implementers, nevermind R6RS/R7RS Small users and implementers. It
would also send a misleading message to anyone unfamiliar with the
Scheme world and all the distinctions between dialects.

> --
> 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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scheme-reports-wg2/35C8115F-8651-43B7-9E9E-71B6049E98A5%40nonceword.org.

[Arthur A. Gleckler]

On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 2:40 PM Daphne Preston-Kendal <d...@nonceword.org> wrote:

 

I would like to hear from other people on the WG about this before making a change to the text.

I'm fine with the current wording.  The second paragraph already describes the messages as a "... statement to candidates and to voters explaining what we hope for in a new steering committee."

  

I have argued before elsewhere that merely changing the name won’t change anything. You are right, though, that a name change alone might send a political signal. Unfortunately, I fear it would be a signal that would alienate the R5RS/R7RS small faction, more than it would be a signal to attract the R6RS faction. I would favour keeping the R7RS large name and making a language which passes R6RSers’ sniff test.

However, as with the previous issue you raised, this is only my own view. I would also like to hear from other people on the WG about this.

I don't want to change the name.  After years and years working on R7RS Large, renaming the effort to "R8RS" would not only be confusing, but would feel like kind of artificial version bump that marketing departments foist on us all the time.

[Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen]

Am So., 12. Okt. 2025 um 05:13 Uhr schrieb Arthur A. Gleckler
<a...@speechcode.com>:

>
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 2:40 PM Daphne Preston-Kendal <d...@nonceword.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> I would like to hear from other people on the WG about this before making a change to the text.
>
>
> I'm fine with the current wording. The second paragraph already describes the messages as a "... statement to candidates and to voters explaining what we hope for in a new steering committee."

Sure, but I really would like not to make this particular statement.
It feels wrong. And it is not helpful; if the new SC is unable to
select a chair on their own (and unable to think of talking to others,
including the WG), everything will be lost anyway.

>
>>
>> I have argued before elsewhere that merely changing the name won’t change anything. You are right, though, that a name change alone might send a political signal. Unfortunately, I fear it would be a signal that would alienate the R5RS/R7RS small faction, more than it would be a signal to attract the R6RS faction. I would favour keeping the R7RS large name and making a language which passes R6RSers’ sniff test.
>>
>> However, as with the previous issue you raised, this is only my own view. I would also like to hear from other people on the WG about this.
>
>
> I don't want to change the name. After years and years working on R7RS Large, renaming the effort to "R8RS" would not only be confusing, but would feel like kind of artificial version bump that marketing departments foist on us all the time.

You seem to miss my point. It is not about whether we would like to
see the name R7RS Large or R8RS, or whether we think it would be
merely a marketing gag or an important renaming. (And, as I
understand, WG does not have a single opinion on these matters.) My
point is to stay neutral as far as our statement goes. The current
statement is (accidentally or not) biased towards R7RS Large. My
request is to insert a sentence to remove this bias.

Marc

[Sudarshan S Chawathe]

On 2025-10-11T23:40:38+0200 (Saturday), Daphne Preston-Kendal writes:
> On 10 Oct 2025, at 16:48, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <marc....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thank you very much for writing this excellent text, Daphne. I have
> > just two comments/wishes:
> >
> > (1) In "2. A chair", I would weaken or even better drop the "in
> > co-ordination with us". At this point, I wouldn't want to give the
> > impression that the working group may have special rights when it
> > comes to the SC. Apart from setting the process in motion and sending
> > out our statement, we should play and internalise the role of equals
> > among equals in the Scheme community. If we dilute the roles, there
> > would be the question why a Steering Committee is needed steering the
> > WG.
>
> I would like to hear from other people on the WG about this before
> making a change to the text.
>
> Since the context is intended to suggest a range of options, make
> clear we would be open to working with the SC to pick a chair while
> leaving the choice of how to go about it entirely up to them, my view
> is that this is okay as it is.

I think the current wording is fine. My hope/assumption is that the SC
and WG will work collaboratively and collegially enough that such
fine-tuning is not necessary up front.

I am against a name-change at this point. It is more likely to muddle
issues than to clarify.

Regards,

-chaw