Initial commit

This commit is contained in:
Lassi Kortela 2022-12-01 21:08:18 +02:00
commit 3b5b139efa
1 changed files with 78 additions and 0 deletions

78 Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
# SR 2022-1: Scheme Review
## Author
Lassi Kortela
## Status
Living document
## Abstract
This document defines the current Scheme Review process. It is
expected to change indefinitely as the process changes.
## Rationale
Scheme Review was started as a response to the success and
shortcomings of the SRFI (Scheme Requests for Implementation) process.
SRFI is over 20 years old so a lot of evidence has been accumulated.
What has worked well with SRFI:
* Everything is public. Transparency builds trust.
* Drafts are announced. Keeps regulars active.
* Separation between authors and reviewers. Provides a good balance
between authorial control and accountability to the community.
What has caused trouble:
* Tight focus on "Requests for Implementation" coupled with the fact
that anyone can send new proposals has resulted in a flow of
experimental work that has not had time to mature.
* Many interesting proposals are either fit into the process like
square pegs into a round hole (with sub-par results), or left
outside the process (devoid of the attention they deserve).
* Tight deadlines commonly fly by. (90 days is not a lot.)
## Specification
[Meant to reflect the current state of things. Not meant to be
Each proposal has one or more authors.
The proposal starts when the authors submit a first draft.
The proposal is submitted as a git repo. (Currently hosted at
The authors are free to send any number of additional drafts.
The authors are free to add more co-authors for later drafts.
### Proposal ID
Each proposal is uniquely identified by an ID of the form `YYYY-N`
* `YYYY` is the four-digit year when the first draft was received, and
* `N` is a running number covering all proposals started in the same
The running number starts from `1` since there are some problems with
SRFI numbers starting from zero. (Hard to remember that SRFI 0 exits;
programs cannot use 0 to mean "none".)
The running numbers are monotonically increasing within a given year,
but it's permissible for there to be gaps in the numbering.
It is expected that many proposals take more than a year to finish. No
matter how many years it takes, the proposal is still identified by
the year when the first draft was sent.