Chairship of WG2

[Marc Feeley]

We're writing as the Scheme Steering Committee (SSC), which oversees the Scheme standardization process (<http://scheme-reports.org/>). The SSC establishes working groups that in turn produce standards for the Scheme language. Under the SSC, Working Group 1 (WG1 <http://scheme-reports.org/2015/working-group-1.html>) finished defining R7RS Small in 2013. Working Group 2 (WG2 <http://scheme-reports.org/2015/working-group-2.html>) began working on R7RS Large in 2010, under chair John Cowan. In 2023, Daphne Preston-Kendal succeeded John as chair of WG2.

After serving since 2009 (<http://scheme-reports.org/2009/announcement.html>), the previous members of the SSC had become less responsive, so the WG2 chair requested an election to choose new members. With the approval of the SSC members, an election (<https://r7rs.org/sc/>) was held in 2026.

Marc Feeley, Arthur Gleckler, and Shiro Kawai are the current members of the SSC.

Communication between the SSC and WG2 is essential. Indeed, it was the very reason the SSC election was held. Therefore, the SSC plans to meet with the WG2 chair regularly to keep up to date not only on the progress of the WG2 efforts, but also to understand the chair's latest plans for the standardization process.

The SSC acknowledges Daphne's contributions to the R7RS Large process both as chair of WG2 and as a technical contributor, e.g. through her SRFIs (<https://srfi.schemers.org/?q=daphne+preston-kendal>). Daphne's careful tracking of the standards process has helped keep discussion on track, and has helped keep the many details from falling through the cracks. Her decision to organize roughly monthly meetings of WG2 on IRC has energized and focused the discussion.

After a meeting in November 2025, WG2 meetings stopped. At Daphne's request, WG2 members Alaric Snell-Pym and Peter McGoron served as acting chairs of WG2, and began running WG2 meetings starting in March.

To arrange the first SSC-chair meeting, the members of the SSC have tried to reach Daphne since early May. The SSC members have sent her messages through different channels, and have asked for help from other WG2 members in reaching her, but haven't received any response.

Communication between the SSC and WG2 is essential. Given the lack of response, and after careful deliberation, the SSC is relieving Daphne of her role as WG2 chair effective immediately.

The SSC will work with WG2 members to determine the next steps for the chairship.

We are grateful for Daphne's service, wish her well, and hope that she will continue to participate in shaping the future of Scheme.

Scheme Steering Committee

   - Marc Feeley

   - Arthur Gleckler

   - Shiro Kawai

[Daphne Preston-Kendal]

I am puzzled by the Scheme Steering Committee’s decision but evidently have no choice but to accept it.

Having taken leave from the chair due to conflict between me and Arthur Gleckler, then in his rôle as SRFI editor – conflict I had hoped the new SC could mediate in – and then decided to extend this leave to contemplate my options after he was one of the unopposed candidates who succeeded to the SC, I eventually decided that I would at least return and chair a meeting to take soundings on some of the key questions surrounding whether my platform as chair was still supported by the WG. Alas, the Scheme SC seemed to wish to pre-empt my desire to do this.

I believed I had a plan of action to mitigate the worst effect of the situation, but I must warn people from vulnerable communities that I do not believe the Scheme Working Group is a safe place to work if you are at risk of any kind of discrimination as long as the current Steering Committee is responsible for dealing with reports of discrimination.

I have seen Wolfgang and Peter’s proposal, I propose that the WG still meet on Tuesday to discuss the situation.

I remain at the disposal of the Steering Committee and the Working Group.


Daphne

> --
> 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/CAO4jMvpsMcmCj3417%3D--85ZUE1XWB5rruXCs2B1bAvp-RFS8WQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alaric Snell-Pym]

On 26/07/2026 15:31, Marc Feeley wrote:

> Communication between the SSC and WG2 is essential. Given the lack of response,
> and after careful deliberation, the SSC is relieving Daphne of her role as
> WG2 chair effective immediately.

Daphne took a leave to deal with some issues, but returned on the 14th
of July and called a WG2 meeting - I'm sure she has a backlog of
WG2-related email to go through and reply to, but it sounds like she's
rejoining us and presumably regular communications will be back on track
imminently?

In other words, isn't it a bit premature to relieve her of her role already?

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

[Alaric Snell-Pym]

Dear Scheme Steering Committee,

Thank you for your announcement about the chairship of WG2, sent on the
26th of July.

We are sad to see that you have dismissed Daphne Preston-Kendall from
the Chair of WG2. We found her to be an effective Chair, and we got a
lot done together.

The suddenness of this decision, however, concerns us. Daphne is only
just returning from a period of leave (arguably, her email of the 14th
of July stating her intention to return to chairing the 28th of July
meeting would place her date of return as either the 14th (at the
earliest) or 28th (at the latest)); and she is still currently
traveling, which limits her ability to communicate. It seems
unreasonable to dismiss her for a failure to communicate under these
circumstances; the Chair is a voluntary role, R7RS standardisation has
taken years already, and acceptable response timescales should allow for
that.

We believe she should have a chance to respond to the SSC now that she
has returned from leave; and that the Scheme Steering Committee should
both reconsider their decision to dismiss her, and provide more
justification as to why they feel her communication with the SSC has
been insufficient.

Yours,

Alaric Snell-Pym
John Cowan
Vincent Manis
Zhu Zihao

[Peter McGoron]

Hello Steering Committee and Working Group 2:

This is the second time in a year that WG2 does not have an active
chair. I believe we should remedy this situation quickly. Without a
chair, it is impossible for WG2 to act on the many items it needs to
address in order to finish the R7RS-Large.

I firmly believe that WG2 should have two administrative positions that
report to the Steering Committee. This can be a chair and a vice-chair
(subordinate to the chair), or it can be two co-equal joint chairs. This
will allow one chair to take over in case of the absence, resignation,
or removal of the other chair. Each chair is kept fully knowledgeable
about the current and future work of WG2, such that they can represent
WG2 and answer questions about its work.

One of these should be Daphne Preston-Kendal. That way, WG2 can use her
experience and knowledge to progress, while the Steering Committee has
another person to talk to about the progress of WG2 in the case of
Daphne's absence. Additionally, if Daphne wishes to resign from the
chairship of WG2 due to it not comporting with her vision of Scheme
standardization (a concern she expressed in a WG2 meeting on
2026-07-28), then the WG2 can continue to operate without having to
divert all of its attention to finding another chair.

Of the other people who have an expressed a desire to be chair, I am
aware of

* Peter McGoron (myself). I currently edit the drafts of the R7RS-Large,
and I am also going to speak at Scheme Workshop 2026 about the
R7RS-Large roadmap.

* John Cowan. He mentioned being able to do it (and was the chair
before), although he feels “it would be better if a newer member did
it.” (mentioned in the WG2 meeting on 2026-07-28)

If the SSC goes with this plan, the two chairs should be chosen in
consultation with WG2.

I think that this will solve the problems that the SSC noted in their
letter, while also allowing for Daphne to continue in her leadership
position (something that many members of WG2 expressed support for).

-- Peter McGoron

[Marc Feeley]

Dear Alaric, John, Vincent, Zhu and other members of WG2. With this message we hope to clear up concerns about the motivations for our decision to remove Daphne Preston-Kendal as Chair. Our goal is that WG2 can continue its work on R7RS Large soon.

A productive working relationship between the SSC and the WG2 Chair requires open, candid, and timely communication. That is the sole issue that led the SSC to that decision. The decision appeared sudden to those who were unaware of the SSC efforts behind the scenes, but attempts to discuss issues with Daphne lasted for months. No response was received to any of these direct and indirect attempts to reach out to her:

- On 3 Feb, Marc replied to a private message from Daphne to Marc and Shiro about an issue that could possibly lead to her resigning from WG2. He suggested to Daphne a way to address her concerns. Marc CC-ed only Shiro.
- On 12 May, a few days after Daphne posted the SSC election results to the WG2 mailing list, Marc wrote to Daphne privately, trying once more to find a way to address her concerns, but this time as an elected member of the SSC.
- On 21 Jun, the SSC announced on scheme-reports-wg2 that the new SSC had been meeting, and that we had decided to meet regularly with the WG2 Chair.
- On 29 Jun, Shiro wrote privately to Daphne, but on behalf of the SSC, asking whether she still planned to resign, and asking about the concerns she had reported earlier.
- On 2 Jul, Arthur wrote to WG2, asking the members for help reaching Daphne.
- On 16 Jul, having seen Daphne's announcement to WG2 that she planned to return, Marc wrote to her, asking her to meet with the SSC. The message subject was "Urgent: meeting with the Scheme Steering Committee".

Over this time Daphne was communicating with other WG2 members, but still did not reply to messages from the SSC. The SSC concluded that she was choosing not to respond to its messages. It was not appropriate for that to continue with another WG2 meeting, so the SSC announced the removal of Daphne as Chair. The SSC stands by this decision.

We are grateful to the members of the WG2, and especially to the acting WG2 Chairs and secretary who have served for the past several months. We would like to choose a new Chair soon, and ask anyone who would be willing to serve to write to us.

Thank you.

Scheme Steering Committee

   - Marc Feeley
   - Arthur Gleckler
   - Shiro Kawai

[Daphne Preston-Kendal]

On 5 Aug 2026, at 12:11, Marc Feeley <dr.marc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> A productive working relationship between the SSC and the WG2 Chair requires open, candid, and timely communication. That is the sole issue that led the SSC to that decision. The decision appeared sudden to those who were unaware of the SSC efforts behind the scenes, but attempts to discuss issues with Daphne lasted for months. No response was received to any of these direct and indirect attempts to reach out to her:

This timeline does not contradict the one I shared with the WG in the meeting on Tuesday last week. I will add one or two comments.

> - On 3 Feb, Marc replied to a private message from Daphne to Marc and Shiro about an issue that could possibly lead to her resigning from WG2. He suggested to Daphne a way to address her concerns. Marc CC-ed only Shiro.

The suggestion was hardly concrete, and in any case the SC election had not been concluded yet – there was no indication that a reply to this email was expected, least of all before the new SC was finally known.

> - On 12 May, a few days after Daphne posted the SSC election results to the WG2 mailing list, Marc wrote to Daphne privately, trying once more to find a way to address her concerns, but this time as an elected member of the SSC.

This is the email I referred to which invited me to a meeting with only Marc and Shiro.

> - On 21 Jun, the SSC announced on scheme-reports-wg2 that the new SSC had been meeting, and that we had decided to meet regularly with the WG2 Chair.

See below.

> - On 29 Jun, Shiro wrote privately to Daphne, but on behalf of the SSC, asking whether she still planned to resign, and asking about the concerns she had reported earlier.

I had overlooked this email. In any case, my interpretation of Shiro’s opening paragraph to this email is that he was writing to me in a private capacity, explicitly *not* on behalf of the SC: it included an explicit promise that any reply would remain between myself and himself and would not be shared with the rest of the SC.

> - On 2 Jul, Arthur wrote to WG2, asking the members for help reaching Daphne.

As explained in the meeting, no WG2 members forwarded this request to me. See below.

> - On 16 Jul, having seen Daphne's announcement to WG2 that she planned to return, Marc wrote to her, asking her to meet with the SSC. The message subject was "Urgent: meeting with the Scheme Steering Committee".

This is the second email I referred to.

> Over this time Daphne was communicating with other WG2 members

In what form or capacity? I occasionally popped my head in to #scheme (though I had left the channel entirely for quite a while, too); if my nick happened to be mentioned during a WG2 meeting while I had my IRC client open anyway, I would perhaps respond. I submitted some initial comments on one SRFI which interested me, but didn’t submit any more until after I announced my return.

I was, as mentioned, on leave, and my level of engagement in general has reflected that. I have had to catch up on the WG’s decisions over the last few months from the minutes, and most of the SRFIs submitted since December are also still on my backlog of reading to do.

My questions for the SC:

It was public knowledge that I was on leave from December 2025 onwards, initially for health reasons. Various factors, most recently the increased time commitment required from my membership of the presidium of Codeberg e.V. due to Codeberg’s recent massive growth, combined with increased hours at my place of employment between February and May 2026 inclusive, meant my leave was longer than expected.

Why did the SC not meet with the acting chairs, but insisted on meeting with me while I was on leave?

Moreover, in the initial announcement of the 28 July meeting, it was clear that an intended topic of discussion would involve the requests the WG wanted to make of the new SC, as shared in our statement to candidates before the election <https://codeberg.org/scheme/r7rs/wiki/Statement-on-SC-Election>. Would it not have been more efficient to hold a chair/SC meeting *after* that meeting, so that the WG’s thoughts on those matters could also be discussed? What issues were so critically urgent that they had to be discussed before I chaired my first WG meeting after returning?

To broach more explicitly a possibility mentioned in last week’s meeting: If the SC has received any allegations about me that they cannot share with the public, I hope they will at least share them with me privately (and anonymously, if necessary), despite their intention not to re-install me. It would be useful for me to know if someone is trying to attack me, regardless of that. Or it would be equally valuable to have a private confirmation that these urgent matters do not include anything of this nature which the SC is not sharing publically.


Daphne

[Daphne Preston-Kendal]

On 6 Aug 2026, at 15:39, Daphne Preston-Kendal <d...@nonceword.org> wrote:

> In what form or capacity? I occasionally popped my head in to #scheme (though I had left the channel entirely for quite a while, too); if my nick happened to be mentioned during a WG2 meeting while I had my IRC client open anyway, I would perhaps respond. I submitted some initial comments on one SRFI which interested me, but didn’t submit any more until after I announced my return.

Oh, apologies: I forgot to mention here that when (through my civil engagement work at Codeberg) I became aware of the Sovereign Tech Standards opportunity (for which Scheme work eventually did turn out to be ineligible), I did ask the WG about it during my leave, considering the tight application deadline.


Daphne

[Marc Feeley]

On Thursday, August 6, 2026 at 9:39:30 AM UTC-4 Daphne Preston-Kendal wrote:

My questions for the SC:

It was public knowledge that I was on leave from December 2025 onwards, initially for health reasons. Various factors, most recently the increased time commitment required from my membership of the presidium of Codeberg e.V. due to Codeberg’s recent massive growth, combined with increased hours at my place of employment between February and May 2026 inclusive, meant my leave was longer than expected.

Why did the SC not meet with the acting chairs, but insisted on meeting with me while I was on leave?

As you will recall the messages sent from 3 Feb to 29 Jun were to find a solution to a critical private matter you brought up with the SSC. It was so critical it caused you to reconsider your chairship rôle. For this reason it was essential to find a resolution.

Moreover, in the initial announcement of the 28 July meeting, it was clear that an intended topic of discussion would involve the requests the WG wanted to make of the new SC, as shared in our statement to candidates before the election <https://codeberg.org/scheme/r7rs/wiki/Statement-on-SC-Election>. Would it not have been more efficient to hold a chair/SC meeting *after* that meeting, so that the WG’s thoughts on those matters could also be discussed? What issues were so critically urgent that they had to be discussed before I chaired my first WG meeting after returning?

Perhaps. The SSC would have appreciated receiving a suggestion from you to do it that way.

To broach more explicitly a possibility mentioned in last week’s meeting: If the SC has received any allegations about me that they cannot share with the public, I hope they will at least share them with me privately (and anonymously, if necessary), despite their intention not to re-install me. It would be useful for me to know if someone is trying to attack me, regardless of that. Or it would be equally valuable to have a private confirmation that these urgent matters do not include anything of this nature which the SC is not sharing publically.

The SSC's decision was based solely on the recent history of unsuccessful attempts to contact you regarding important and time-sensitive matters. Both Shiro and Arthur have confirmed that there were no other considerations involved in the decision.

To be completely clear, the SSC has not received any allegations concerning you, nor is there any other information of that nature that is being withheld from you. Consequently, there is no confidential matter underlying the decision that would need to be communicated to you privately.

Sincerely,

[Daphne Preston-Kendal]

On 9 Aug 2026, at 05:47, Marc Feeley <dr.marc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, August 6, 2026 at 9:39:30 AM UTC-4 Daphne Preston-Kendal wrote:
>
>> My questions for the SC:
>> It was public knowledge that I was on leave from December 2025 onwards, initially for health reasons. Various factors, most recently the increased time commitment required from my membership of the presidium of Codeberg e.V. due to Codeberg’s recent massive growth, combined with increased hours at my place of employment between February and May 2026 inclusive, meant my leave was longer than expected.
>> Why did the SC not meet with the acting chairs, but insisted on meeting with me while I was on leave?
>
> As you will recall the messages sent from 3 Feb to 29 Jun were to find a solution to a critical private matter you brought up with the SSC. It was so critical it caused you to reconsider your chairship rôle. For this reason it was essential to find a resolution.

As described in the meeting on 28 July, there were two parts to the ‘critical private matter’ you mentioned:

1. My concerns about the procedural properness of some aspects of SRFI 261, implicitly extending to concerns about the trustworthiness of the SRFI process as a vehicle for R7-large development in general, which Arthur (in his role as SRFI editor) left unanswered for over two months. On 18 February, however, he did finally answer those questions, I was satisfied with his answers, and that conflict was resolved. I thanked him for his answer, so Arthur (in his role as SC member) should know that this aspect was entirely resolved before the election even concluded.

2. My concerns about Arthur’s suitability as a candidate for the SC more generally, which I also expressed in a mail to the scheme-reports mailing list on 23 January. As also described in the WG’s last meeting, what remained after the SRFI 261 issue was a deeper conflict of personal values. While I appreciate the offer you made to mediate, it would not be a good use of anyone’s time to try to get Arthur and I to agree on these things. It was well within my responsibility as chair to find a solution to the *practical* effects of the differences in political philosophy between me and Arthur – those practical problems arose largely due to a decision I made during the term of the previous SC in any case – and I was in the process of implementing such a solution before returning to the chair.

That I no longer considered this ‘critical private matter’ a problem for my continuing to hold and exercise the chairship rôle should have been evident, since I did intend to re-take the chair.

>> Moreover, in the initial announcement of the 28 July meeting, it was clear that an intended topic of discussion would involve the requests the WG wanted to make of the new SC, as shared in our statement to candidates before the election <https://codeberg.org/scheme/r7rs/wiki/Statement-on-SC-Election>. Would it not have been more efficient to hold a chair/SC meeting *after* that meeting, so that the WG’s thoughts on those matters could also be discussed? What issues were so critically urgent that they had to be discussed before I chaired my first WG meeting after returning?
>
> Perhaps. The SSC would have appreciated receiving a suggestion from you to do it that way.

This answers the first question, but not the second.

>> To broach more explicitly a possibility mentioned in last week’s meeting: If the SC has received any allegations about me that they cannot share with the public, I hope they will at least share them with me privately (and anonymously, if necessary), despite their intention not to re-install me. It would be useful for me to know if someone is trying to attack me, regardless of that. Or it would be equally valuable to have a private confirmation that these urgent matters do not include anything of this nature which the SC is not sharing publically.
>
> The SSC's decision was based solely on the recent history of unsuccessful attempts to contact you regarding important and time-sensitive matters.

If the above is indicative of the matters in question, then I am the one who raised the matters and, as the person who raised them, I no longer considered them nearly as important nor time-sensitive as the SC seemed to think.

The job of the SC in relation to the chair, as I see it, is to advise. If advice were needed, it would have been sought.

Is the SC seriously trying to tell me I was fired because of an issue I myself raised and subsequently resolved without its involvement – mostly resolved before this SC was even elected, as the SC member in question knew? This is not exactly convincing.

> Both Shiro and Arthur have confirmed that there were no other considerations involved in the decision.
>
> To be completely clear, the SSC has not received any allegations concerning you, nor is there any other information of that nature that is being withheld from you. Consequently, there is no confidential matter underlying the decision that would need to be communicated to you privately.

Thank you. That’s a relief.


Daphne

[shiro...@gmail.com]

Hello Peter,

I'm writing on behalf of SSC.  Thanks for your suggestion regarding two administrative positions in WG2.  From SSC's point of view, however, it is crucial to have a single person responsible for communication.  Splitting that responsibility would only complicate matters, and isn't necessary for a small committee like WG2.

We're starting the process of selecting a new chair.   If you'd like to volunteer or recommend someone, please let SSC know, either publicly or privately.

[Peter McGoron]

> We're starting the process of selecting a new chair. If you'd like
to volunteer or recommend someone, please let SSC know, either publicly
or privately.

OK. I will volunteer to chair it.

Qualifications copy-pasted from the previous email:

> I currently edit the drafts of the R7RS-Large,
and I am also going to speak at Scheme Workshop 2026 about the
R7RS-Large roadmap.

-- Peter McGoron