More on R6RS ratification
Given the preliminary results, it looks like R6RS will pass with a 66% margin (I predicted 70% a while ago). Strangely, official results haven't been announced yet, in violation of the announced schedule. More strangely, everyone seems to be quiet on this delay; I suspect that the nays are hoping for some last-minute deliverance handed down from the Steering Committee, but I'm surprised that the ayes aren't becoming impatient at this point.
The comments section provides a glimpse into the disastrous effects of a biased electoral process that requires justification from dissenters, but not from approvers. While most of the nays provide a detailed analysis of the draft (usually acknowledging its virtues where applicable), the "yes" camp, where it bothers at all to comment, seems to employ a pretty lax standard (including a few pearls that I won't quote in order not to offend the authors).
One comment that I found sad, yet funny states that "...Scheme needs a splash of 'worse is better' to move the language standard forward" — coming from a voter from New Jersey, no less.
On a personal note, I almost messed up my ballot. I sent my vote just before the deadline from my registered voter address, but I forgot to change the default email-address field of the ballot. My vote was rejected; I sent a corrected ballot, but only after the deadline, so it wouldn't count. I e-mailed Alan Bawden, who mentioned that "I did fix a lot of people's ballots in trivial ways... [including]... unbalanced parentheses, but I drew the line at actually altering people's claimed identities" (the email-address field apparently taking precedence over the originating address in the email envelope). Luckily, my vote was accepted after a short back-and-forth.
Update: the Steering Committee has ratified R5.97RS.