[plt-scheme] Re: Is R6RS useless for PLT?

Robby Findler wrote:
> Folks,
>
>   At the risk of repeating myself, core PLT members have put in a huge
> amount of effort into R6RS already. I think it is time to stop telling
> us how more would be better and instead step up and contribute.
>
> Thanks,
> Robby

Just in case there was any misunderstanding, let me clearly state how  
much I appreciate the work of the PLT Team, also with regard to the  
work they've done to support R6RS Scheme.  We use PLT all the time for  
developing R6RS libraries, which we make available as Open Source <http://carneades.berlios.de 
 >.
But, having said that, I must admit having been somewhat disappointed  
when PLT Scheme Version 4.0 was announced.  Having known that  
prominent members of the PLT team had been strong promoters of R6RS  
and that support for R6RS had been promised, I wrongly jumped to the  
conclusion that this support would take the form of making R6RS Scheme  
the "native" Scheme dialect for PLT Scheme.
This choice does not send the kind of signal I would have hoped to the  
Scheme community, and new potential Scheme programmers.  When the  
people who had been amoung the strongest supporters of the new R6RS  
standard choose to focus their energies on a non-standard dialect, it  
suggests they have doubts about thetechnical quality of the standard.   
Why else would they prefer to do things differenlty in their own  
dialect?  Considering how controversial R6RS has been, what kind of  
impression does it make when one of its strongest *proponents* decides  
to go their own way?
What kind of contribution would you like to see from others, to help  
make R6RS a success?  Writing their code in R6RS?  Porting libraries  
to R6RS?  If the PLT Team really would like to encourage people to  
write portable code, using R6RS, why does it at the same time entice  
us with us with new non-standard dialect and a bunch of great tools  
available only when using this dialect?
To me, PLT's support for R6RS seems somewhat half-hearted and ambiguous.
-Tom