Will Clinger posted “a politically incorrect guide to the candidates” in hopes of helping registered voters here.
It is well written and worth a read by anyone interested in the future of Scheme.
The following is a copy of the entire message:
The Scheme Language Steering Committee's announcement of the forthcoming election says When the nomination period ends, the complete list of candidates will be published on www.r6rs.org. Candidates may also post whatever messages they wish to comp.lang.scheme, the r6rs-discuss mailing list, or whatever other forums they feel appropriate, and voters should feel free to discuss the candidates and their positions on these fora. After 12 candidates have been nominated, and 129 voters registered, we now begin the campaign and/or endorsement period. Voters will be asked to rank the candidates, and three candidates will be elected by "single transferable vote proportional representation." The top two votes on my ballot will be John Cowan and Jonathan Rees (in some order). My reasoning is simple: In my opinion, any subset of the twelve candidates that includes those two would make a fine Scheme Language Steering Committee. The Steering Committee is responsible for the process and its direction. As Rees and Cowan indicated in their statements, they have experience with process issues and also understand that the direction of this process needs to change. That does not make them unique among this group of twelve candidates. Indeed, I have not decided which of several worthy candidates I should rank third. The candidates can be aggregated along several dimensions. Three voted to ratify the R6RS; five voted against ratification; four did not vote. Three candidates were editors of the R6RS, and two more served on the editors' committee but resigned before any documents were put to a vote. Eight candidates have implemented or are now maintaining a popular implementation of Scheme. There is much to be said for the neutrality that comes of not being associated with any particular implementation; all three members of the original Steering Committee were neutral in that sense. Of the twelve new candidates, four are not associated with any major implementation: John Cowan, Anton van Straaten, Ray Dillinger, and Richard O'Keefe. John Cowan is an expert on Unicode, and his comments on drafts of the R6RS showed excellent judgment. Anton van Straaten was the only R6RS editor who was not associated with a particular implementation. That gave him a broader perspective that was sometimes difficult for the other editors to appreciate. He was the only one of the four R6RS editors who abstained from the vote on ratification. As Ray Dillinger noted in his statement, he took the initiative to renew IEEE Standard 1178, which is still the only standard for Scheme that is recognized as a national or international standard. Dillinger did not vote on R6RS ratification. Richard O'Keefe is an accomplished Scheme programmer. Many implementations of Scheme rely on his efficient code for merge sorting of lists. O'Keefe did not vote on R6RS ratification. Turning to the implementors, Will Clinger is the only candidate who has implemented the R6RS. Larceny was, in fact, the first substantially complete implementation of the R6RS. If you think that's a good reason *not* to vote for Clinger, then I have no argument with you. If you'd like to vote for an implementor who has shown less enthusiasm for the R6RS than Clinger, then you have seven to choose from. Marc Feeley polled implementors of the R3RS/R4RS/R5RS and IEEE/ANSI Scheme to gauge their enthusiasm for the draft R6RS that was put up for ratification; that was something the editors themselves should have done. Marc also served as the original chair of the R6RS editors' committee. Aubrey Jaffer, the implementor of SCM, has also been the driving force behind SLIB, which was arguably the first successful collection of portable libraries for Scheme. Chris Hanson, who has been maintaining MIT Scheme, is a charter author of the R*RS documents, and was an editor of the IEEE-1178 standard. He also wrote much of that standard's Appendixes B and C, which were significant milestones during the standardization of Scheme (and Lisp generally). Jonathan Rees was one of the original implementors of T and Scheme 48. He too is a charter author of the R*RS documents, and was editor of the much-beloved R3RS. Olin Shivers is responsible for scsh. Among the twelve candidates, he is the only implementor who abstained from the R6RS ratification vote. Kent Dybvig is responsible for Chez Scheme, and did a good job of chairing the R6RS editors' committee after Feeley resigned. In his statement, Kent Dybvig said he "will not use a position on the steering committee as a mechanism to push" his opinions. Mike Sperber, who has been maintaining Scheme 48, edited the R6RS documents. He has also served as an editor for the SRFI process, which was arguably the second successful collection of portable libraries for Scheme. In October 2007, Dybvig and Sperber announced their intentions to implement the R6RS in Chez Scheme and Scheme 48 (respectively) within a year. There is much to be said for their moderate approach to implementing the R6RS, just as there is much that could be said against the pioneering approach taken by Ikarus, Larceny, PLT Scheme, Ypsilon, IronScheme, and Mosh. I wrote this guide to the candidates in hope it will help some voters. Someone nominated me. As the only candidate who is responsible for maintaining implementations of both the R5RS and R6RS, I certainly have a stake in the outcome of this process. If elected, I will serve to the best of my ability. Urging you to vote for me would have been the politically correct thing for me to do. Instead, I urge you to vote for the best committee you can imagine. Will