[groovy2shoes]

> One of the nice things about the large-small split is that it satisfies all parties, ...

Unfortunately not. R7RS-small introduced some incompatibilities with R6RS that caused some R6RS fans (yes, they exist) to dissent. One was samth, as I recall, but I can't remember the names of any of the other outspoken critics of R7RS. If the mailing lists hadn't disappeared, I'd probably be able to find the threads for you. They made some good points.

Personally, my gripes with the R7RS-small are pretty minor, and overall I think it's good and I welcome it whole-heartedly. The modules and the records were sorely needed for decades. They were slotted for R5RS, but back then the RnRS was ratified by full consensus rather than majority vote, and some people simply refused to compromise. This is why R5RS took almost 10 years when its predecessors only took a handful of years. (In retrospect, I wish they'd made them an appendix in R5RS, like what they did for macros in R4RS, but it's far too late for that now...).

[johncowan]

Some 66% of those who voted on R6RS voted "yes" (including me). Some 88% of those who voted on R7RS voted "yes" (including me).

[groovy2shoes]

Yup, and neither of those is a full consensus. Iirc, the only person holding out on the record proposal for R5RS was Kent Dybvig, and that was enough to block it. Prior to R6RS, the RnRS was only ratified on full consensus, not almost consensus.

Note that I'm not opposed to the new "80%+ vote in favor" system (I think it's a very good thing), I'm just pointing out the history.