Initial commit
This commit is contained in:
commit
3b5b139efa
|
@ -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
|
||||||
|
finalized.]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
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
|
||||||
|
`gitea.scheme.org/review`.)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
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`
|
||||||
|
where:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
* `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
|
||||||
|
year.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
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.
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue