PFNs, explicit vs. implicit incorporation, and alleged dodgy processes

1 view
Skip to first unread message

John Cowan

Mar 17, 2022, 3:26:38 PMMar 17
I've been asked to spell out my take (qua WG2 chair) on PFNs.

I divide PFNs into two groups: group alef being those that are approved before the underlying SRFI is voted into R7RS-large and group beth being those that are approved afterwards.  (I'm temporarily setting aside group gimel, the PFNs that are approved after R7RS-large is finalized.)

1) A SRFI is finalized when the author (or in certain circumstances the SRFI Editor) says it is: there is no voting or other collective decision-making process.

2) No PFN is added to a SRFI without the SRFI author's approval.  All PFNs physically appear within the SRFI text in the Status section.  The SRFI editor ensures these things.

3) As a result, I (qua chair) assume that an aleph PFN should be implicitly incorporated into the SRFI, as the author is proposing it to WG2 with all its PFNs.  So when WG2 or one of its committees votes on a particular SRFI, it is voting on all the PFNs that are contained in that SRFI at the time.  I see nothing dodgy about this part of the process.

4) On the other hand, a beth PFN is *not* implicitly incorporated into the SRFI, and if it is to become part of R7RS-large, it must be explicitly voted in as part of a subsequent ballot.  I haven't made a proper investigation of which PFNs are in group beth, but at least PFN 3 of SRFI 113 (sets and bags) will need to be balloted.  This should be a Committee C job, if its chair agrees.

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages