Revised straw proposal for heuristic info

[Alan Bawden <Alan@lcs.mit.edu>]

   Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 17:08:30 +0000
   From: William D Clinger <will@ccs.neu.edu>
   ...
   Since we seem to be agreed (a miracle?!?!!) that this stuff
   doesn't belong in the RnRS, this is the sort of thing that
   some random group of implementors could agree upon and publish.
   If some university or implementation should choose to bind it
   together with the R5RS, let them take whatever flack the R*RS
   authors might give them.

Yeah right.  Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.  And of course it wouldn't be a
-standard- or anything.  Just something that just happens to come bound
together with the standard, and that many implementations just happen to
support.  Right.  I get it.  And if some of the Authors have a different
idea?  Well, all it takes is a single implementor to veto any incompatible
proposals, so the hell with them!  It's perfect.  It is a miracle -- you've
found a way to break the deadlock and get the Scheme language moving again!

I -am- still a little unclear on the details of how this decision was made.
Did we take a vote and I missed it?  Or is this something that you're
hoping that the implementors are going to "ratify" at the upcoming Scheme
Implementors Workshop?  Since this new technique for avoiding the Authors
is clearly going to change the way the language evolves, I want to get
clear on the mechanics.  As someone who -isn't- an implementor, what
influence do I have over this new process?  Am I limited to sending
easily-ignored electronic mail to RRRS-Authors?