perm filename BIG5.MSG[COM,LSP]5 blob sn#815686 filedate 1986-04-27 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00220 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00026 00002	
C00027 00003	∂15-Dec-85  1731	RPG  	Mailing List  
C00028 00004	∂15-Dec-85  2009	RPG  	Lists    
C00030 00005	∂16-Dec-85  1116	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Lists        
C00035 00006	∂16-Dec-85  1338	RPG  	Flushing People    
C00037 00007	∂16-Dec-85  1424	RPG  	In Fact...    
C00039 00008	∂16-Dec-85  1528	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Flushing People        
C00042 00009	∂16-Dec-85  1554	Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	Flushing people  
C00044 00010	∂17-Dec-85  2212	Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	Alan Bawden 
C00046 00011	∂17-Dec-85  2237	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	Re: ISO 
C00049 00012	∂18-Dec-85  0635	kessler%utah-orion@utah-cs.arpa 	ISO/European
C00060 00013	∂18-Dec-85  0954	RPG  	ISO Committee Membership
C00062 00014	∂18-Dec-85  0955	RPG  	European discussion
C00074 00015	∂18-Dec-85  1223	DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	European discussion    
C00076 00016	∂18-Dec-85  1913	SQUIRES@USC-ISI.ARPA 	Re: Varia Regarding the Meeting  
C00078 00017	∂18-Dec-85  2125	RPG  	ISO 
C00081 00018	∂18-Dec-85  2206	JAR@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 	Common Lisp    
C00085 00019	∂19-Dec-85  0013	JAR@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 	ISO  
C00092 00020	∂19-Dec-85  1006	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	ISO   
C00095 00021	∂19-Dec-85  1056	DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	Japanese members  
C00098 00022	∂19-Dec-85  1320	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	European discussion    
C00101 00023	∂19-Dec-85  1439	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Committee membership   
C00113 00024	∂19-Dec-85  1522	RPG  	Committee Membership    
C00116 00025	∂19-Dec-85  1631	DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	European discussion    
C00118 00026	∂19-Dec-85  1703	DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	Committee membership   
C00126 00027	∂19-Dec-85  1826	DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	Committee Membership        
C00130 00028	∂20-Dec-85  1203	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	European discussion    
C00132 00029	∂20-Dec-85  1202	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Committee membership   
C00137 00030	∂21-Dec-85  1731	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Varia   
C00139 00031	∂21-Dec-85  2108	SQUIRES@USC-ISI.ARPA 	Re: ISO etc  
C00144 00032	∂23-Dec-85  1014	RPG  	Varia on ISO  
C00145 00033	∂23-Dec-85  1044	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Varia on ISO      
C00147 00034	∂24-Dec-85  1207	RPG  	Committee members  
C00151 00035	∂27-Dec-85  1501	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Committee members      
C00157 00036	∂27-Dec-85  1553	DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	Committee members      
C00160 00037	∂27-Dec-85  1700	RPG  	Chips    
C00163 00038	∂27-Dec-85  2024	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Chips        
C00170 00039	∂29-Dec-85  0928	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Committee membership   
C00172 00040	∂29-Dec-85  1220	Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	Committee membership  
C00174 00041	∂29-Dec-85  1334	RPG  	Committee
C00176 00042	∂29-Dec-85  1535	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Committee    
C00178 00043	∂29-Dec-85  1601	RPG  	Order of events    
C00179 00044	∂29-Dec-85  2149	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Order of events        
C00181 00045	∂30-Dec-85  0915	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	Chips      
C00186 00046	∂30-Dec-85  0924	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	Open meetings   
C00189 00047	∂30-Dec-85  0930	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Chips        
C00192 00048	∂30-Dec-85  0936	RPG  	Cartwright    
C00193 00049	∂30-Dec-85  1020	RPG  	McCarthy 
C00194 00050	∂30-Dec-85  1100	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Cartwright        
C00198 00051	∂30-Dec-85  1107	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	McCarthy     
C00200 00052	∂30-Dec-85  1122	RPG  
C00201 00053	∂30-Dec-85  1127	RPG  	Cartwright etc
C00202 00054	∂30-Dec-85  1139	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Cartwright etc    
C00204 00055	∂30-Dec-85  1259	DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	Committees   
C00209 00056	∂30-Dec-85  1300	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	Cartwright etc  
C00213 00057	∂30-Dec-85  1702	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Cartwright etc    
C00215 00058	∂30-Dec-85  1715	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Steer is to Bull as Steering Committee is to ...
C00217 00059	∂30-Dec-85  2119	RPG  	Don't say ``Steer,'' say ``Bull.''
C00218 00060	∂31-Dec-85  1657	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	Steerage   
C00219 00061	∂05-Jan-86  1506	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Membership in committees    
C00237 00062	∂06-Jan-86  1726	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Moving forward    
C00240 00063	∂07-Jan-86  0837	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	[SQUIRES: Membership in committees]   
C00243 00064	∂07-Jan-86  0942	RPG  	Rees, Griss, and Bobrow 
C00244 00065	∂09-Jan-86  1401	JAR@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 	ISO Commitee Membership  
C00247 00066	∂09-Jan-86  1404	RPG  	Rees
C00248 00067	∂09-Jan-86  1512	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Rees    
C00250 00068	∂15-Jan-86  1755	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Bob Mathis   
C00252 00069	∂16-Jan-86  1132	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	Standard for Common LISP    
C00254 00070	∂20-Jan-86  1307	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	Schedule for approval of standards committee    
C00262 00071	∂20-Jan-86  1331	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	Standardization of Common LISP   
C00266 00072	∂20-Jan-86  1408	RPG  	Asking non-US citizens to join    
C00267 00073	∂20-Jan-86  1508	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Asking non-US citizens to join        
C00269 00074	∂20-Jan-86  1518	RPG  	Griss    
C00270 00075	∂20-Jan-86  1746	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Griss        
C00273 00076	∂22-Jan-86  1032	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	SPARC proposal    
C00281 00077	∂22-Jan-86  1123	RPG  	Hold it right there!    
C00285 00078	∂22-Jan-86  1207	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Hold it right there!        
C00287 00079	∂22-Jan-86  1411	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	SPARC proposal    
C00300 00080	∂22-Jan-86  1441	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	SPARC's flying  
C00303 00081	∂22-Jan-86  1448	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	Britain and Italy    
C00304 00082	∂24-Jan-86  1941	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	Re: SPARC proposal
C00305 00083	∂04-Feb-86  1103	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Symbols as functions   
C00309 00084	∂04-Feb-86  1257	Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	Symbols as functions  
C00316 00085	∂05-Feb-86  0818	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	Re: SPARC proposal
C00319 00086	∂05-Feb-86  1536	Fitch%cs.ucl.ac.uk@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK 	LISP standardisation  
C00326 00087	∂05-Feb-86  1943	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	EuLisp  
C00332 00088	∂06-Feb-86  0505	DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	EuLisp  
C00334 00089	∂06-Feb-86  1742	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	Fitch & Fahlman messages    
C00336 00090	∂06-Feb-86  1748	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	LISP or Lisp 
C00337 00091	∂06-Feb-86  1806	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	LISP or Lisp 
C00339 00092	∂06-Feb-86  1814	DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	LISP or Lisp 
C00341 00093	∂06-Feb-86  0939	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	LISP standardisation 
C00343 00094	∂07-Feb-86  1004	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	EuLisp  
C00345 00095	∂07-Feb-86  1026	RPG  	EuLisp   
C00346 00096	∂07-Feb-86  1216	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	LISP or Lisp    
C00348 00097	∂08-Feb-86  1800	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Committees   
C00351 00098	∂09-Feb-86  1923	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	standardization   
C00369 00099	∂10-Feb-86  0919	DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	standardization   
C00371 00100	∂10-Feb-86  0957	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	standardization   
C00375 00101	∂11-Feb-86  1150	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	Re: standardization    
C00378 00102	∂11-Feb-86  1215	RPG  	List of CL-supporting companies   
C00379 00103	∂12-Feb-86  1008	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	List of CL-supporting companies       
C00382 00104	∂12-Feb-86  1102	RPG  	CL Implementations 
C00383 00105	∂12-Feb-86  1911	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	implemetations    
C00385 00106	∂12-Feb-86  1939	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	implemetations    
C00387 00107	∂13-Feb-86  1052	RPG  	Companies who line up...
C00388 00108	∂14-Feb-86  1158	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	ISO ad hoc group on Prolog and Lisp   
C00396 00109	∂20-Feb-86  1343	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	committee membership   
C00398 00110	∂20-Feb-86  1459	RPG  	Membership    
C00399 00111	∂20-Feb-86  1627	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Membership        
C00403 00112	∂20-Feb-86  1744	RPG  	Griss etc
C00405 00113	∂20-Feb-86  1908	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Griss etc    
C00408 00114	∂20-Feb-86  1948	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Technical committee    
C00412 00115	∂23-Feb-86  1601	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
C00428 00116	∂27-Feb-86  1331	RPG   	Griss        
C00433 00117	∂27-Feb-86  1340	RPG  
C00449 00118	∂27-Feb-86  1350	RPG   	Re: Technical committee
C00453 00119	∂27-Feb-86  1654	RPG   	ISO     
C00455 00120	∂27-Feb-86  1657	RPG   	Re: ISO 
C00458 00121	∂27-Feb-86  1658	RPG   	Details 
C00460 00122	∂27-Feb-86  1701	RPG   	Details 
C00471 00123	∂01-Mar-86  2154	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Membership   
C00476 00124	∂03-Mar-86  1207	Moon@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Membership
C00479 00125	∂03-Mar-86  2009	RPG  	Other candidates   
C00480 00126	∂03-Mar-86  2030	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Other candidates       
C00484 00127	∂06-Mar-86  2132	DLW@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Other candidates     
C00488 00128	∂07-Mar-86  1226	RPG  	Committee
C00490 00129	∂08-Mar-86  2049	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Committee    
C00493 00130	∂09-Mar-86  0836	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Technical committee    
C00497 00131	∂09-Mar-86  1335	RPG  	Technical Committee
C00500 00132	∂09-Mar-86  1423	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Technical Committee    
C00504 00133	∂09-Mar-86  1532	RPG  	Technical Committee
C00509 00134	∂09-Mar-86  1713	RPG  	Proposed Message regarding X3J13 Membership 
C00516 00135	∂09-Mar-86  2022	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Proposed Message regarding X3J13 Membership     
C00519 00136	∂10-Mar-86  0958	RPG   	Proposed message       
C00521 00137	∂10-Mar-86  1008	DLW@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Proposed Message regarding X3J13 Membership   
C00525 00138	∂10-Mar-86  1010	DLW@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Proposed Message regarding X3J13 Membership   
C00527 00139	∂10-Mar-86  1008	DLW@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Proposed Message regarding X3J13 Membership   
C00529 00140	∂10-Mar-86  1025	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Griss   
C00532 00141	∂10-Mar-86  1313	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	Proposed Message regarding X3J13 Membership   
C00543 00142	∂10-Mar-86  1347	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	Proposed Message regarding X3J13 Membership   
C00545 00143	∂10-Mar-86  1454	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	Re: Proposed Message regarding X3J13 Membership 
C00547 00144	∂10-Mar-86  1926	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Committee membership   
C00557 00145	∂10-Mar-86  1928	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Technical committee, continued   
C00559 00146	∂10-Mar-86  1936	Moon@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Technical Committee 
C00563 00147	∂10-Mar-86  1954	@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA,@LONG-TAILED-JAEGER.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	Proposed Message regarding X3J13 Membership 
C00565 00148	∂10-Mar-86  2024	RPG  	Membership Message 
C00566 00149	∂11-Mar-86  0717	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	Technical committee, continued 
C00568 00150	∂11-Mar-86  0731	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	Membership Message   
C00572 00151	∂11-Mar-86  0807	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Membership Message     
C00579 00152	∂11-Mar-86  0926	RPG  	Clarfication  
C00580 00153	∂11-Mar-86  1256	RPG   	Common Lisp Standard   
C00583 00154	∂11-Mar-86  1409	Moon@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Committee membership
C00585 00155	∂12-Mar-86  0838	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	Re: Committee membership    
C00589 00156	∂12-Mar-86  1528	DLW@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Committee membership 
C00591 00157	∂12-Mar-86  1621	RPG  	Membership    
C00592 00158	∂12-Mar-86  1706	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Membership        
C00594 00159	∂12-Mar-86  1743	squires@ipto.ARPA 	The Message
C00597 00160	∂12-Mar-86  1856	RPG  
C00598 00161	∂12-Mar-86  2021	RPG  	McCarthy 
C00599 00162	∂13-Mar-86  1113	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Final draft (I think)  
C00609 00163	∂17-Mar-86  1121	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Committee memberships  
C00611 00164	∂17-Mar-86  1300	RPG  	Bawden   
C00615 00165	∂17-Mar-86  1335	Moon@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Bawden    
C00617 00166	∂17-Mar-86  1413	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	The Message  
C00620 00167	∂17-Mar-86  1508	RPG  	Mailing lists 
C00621 00168	∂17-Mar-86  1657	Moon@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Mailing lists  
C00624 00169	∂17-Mar-86  1700	Moon@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	The Message    
C00627 00170	∂17-Mar-86  1714	RPG   	Committee: Yes, with reservations
C00631 00171	∂17-Mar-86  1743	RPG  	Mailing Lists 
C00632 00172	∂17-Mar-86  1919	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Mailing Lists     
C00635 00173	∂17-Mar-86  2034	squires@ipto.ARPA 	The Message
C00639 00174	∂17-Mar-86  2110	RPG  	Mailing Lists 
C00642 00175	∂17-Mar-86  2226	Moon@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Mailing Lists  
C00644 00176	∂18-Mar-86  0709	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	Mailing lists   
C00647 00177	∂18-Mar-86  0711	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Mailing Lists     
C00649 00178	∂18-Mar-86  0719	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	Mailing Lists   
C00651 00179	∂18-Mar-86  1031	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	[fateman: ANSI stuff]  
C00656 00180	∂18-Mar-86  1130	RPG  	World-class   
C00657 00181	∂18-Mar-86  1525	DLW@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	[fateman: ANSI stuff]
C00661 00182	∂18-Mar-86  1731	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	[fateman: ANSI stuff]  
C00664 00183	∂18-Mar-86  2006	RPG  	Proposed Justification Letter
C00672 00184	∂18-Mar-86  2117	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Proposed Justification Letter    
C00679 00185	∂18-Mar-86  2144	Moon@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Proposed Justification Letter 
C00681 00186	∂19-Mar-86  0726	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	Re: Proposed Justification Letter
C00684 00187	∂19-Mar-86  0738	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Proposed Justification Letter    
C00686 00188	∂19-Mar-86  0834	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Proposed response to Fateman
C00691 00189	∂19-Mar-86  1010	DLW@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Proposed Justification Letter  
C00700 00190	∂19-Mar-86  1118	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	X3J13 list   
C00702 00191	∂19-Mar-86  1132	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Proposed Justification Letter    
C00704 00192	∂19-Mar-86  1227	Moon@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Proposed response to Fateman  
C00705 00193	∂19-Mar-86  1408	DLW@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Proposed response to Fateman   
C00707 00194	∂19-Mar-86  1432	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Proposed response to Fateman
C00709 00195	∂19-Mar-86  1735	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Damage control    
C00711 00196	∂20-Mar-86  1355	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	[fateman: ANSI stuff]  
C00714 00197	∂20-Mar-86  1356	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	[SQUIRES: Franz]  
C00719 00198	∂20-Mar-86  1409	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Committee membership   
C00723 00199	∂20-Mar-86  1436	RPG  	Thoughts on membership  
C00725 00200	∂20-Mar-86  1920	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Thoughts on membership      
C00728 00201	∂21-Mar-86  0601	DLW@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Committee membership 
C00734 00202	∂21-Mar-86  0611	DLW@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	[SQUIRES: Franz]
C00739 00203	∂21-Mar-86  0713	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	Re: Committee membership    
C00743 00204	∂21-Mar-86  0738	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Membership   
C00748 00205	∂21-Mar-86  1041	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	Membership 
C00756 00206	∂21-Mar-86  1427	RPG  	Multiple, Trivial Points
C00759 00207	∂21-Mar-86  1821	squires@ipto.ARPA 	Re: [SQUIRES: Franz] 
C00765 00208	∂21-Mar-86  1844	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	[SQUIRES: Franz]  
C00767 00209	∂25-Mar-86  0317	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	For the record: an exchange between me and Fateman 
C00783 00210	∂25-Mar-86  0957	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	[fateman@dali.berkeley.edu: Re:  Standardization]  
C00787 00211	∂26-Mar-86  0933	RPG   	Varia        
C00790 00212	∂26-Mar-86  0934	RPG   	Varia        
C00792 00213	∂10-Apr-86  1937	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	[franz!fisi!fkunze: common lisp technical committee membership]
C00798 00214	∂10-Apr-86  1939	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	[Fahlman: common lisp steering and technical committee membership]  
C00803 00215	∂13-Apr-86  1437	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Technical and Steering Committees
C00825 00216	∂14-Apr-86  0727	DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	Technical and Steering Committees, re-mailed    
C00827 00217	∂14-Apr-86  0817	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Technical and Steering Committees, re-mailed    
C00829 00218	∂20-Apr-86  1612	RPG   	Re: Chairman 
C00832 00219	∂21-Apr-86  0812	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	Fahlman message to Kunze 13 April
C00835 00220	∂21-Apr-86  0823	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Fahlman message to Kunze 13 April
C00838 ENDMK
C⊗;
∂15-Dec-85  1731	RPG  	Mailing List  
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA   
I have changed the handling of the quinquevirate so that it is
private amongst ourselves - that is, I have altered the archiving
of the messages sent on it to be less accessible. I will create
a list called CL-ISO (it doesn't exist yet) which will be
archived in COMMON.MSG[COM,LSP], and which will include Squires
and Mathis, but not Balzer.
			-rpg-

∂15-Dec-85  2009	RPG  	Lists    
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA   

Let me be more explicit:

QUINQUEVIRATE: This is the 5 of us. It excludes Squires and Mathis.
It is archived someplace private. In it we can discuss such issues as:
Do we trust Mathis to not blow it with the French? Is Fateman a total
loser? How do we jettison Balzer?

CL-ISO: This is the 5 of us plus Mathis plus Squires. In it we discuss the
contents of the technical committee, but we can discuss fairness issues
somewhat openly, as well as strategy. It will be archived separately from
COMMON.MSG.

CL-CHARTER: This is anyone  who cares to be on it. Here we discuss issues
with the community, such as nominations from the community at large.

∂16-Dec-85  1116	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Lists        
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 16 Dec 85  11:16:36 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 16 Dec 85 13:30:59-EST
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1985  11:18 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12167591858.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc:   Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Lists    
In-reply-to: Msg of 15 Dec 1985  23:09-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


Dick,

OK, assuming that this is now a private channel, to the extent that
anything on a network can be...

You have mentioned a couple of times the issue of "getting rid of
Balzer".  I can't tell if that is just a whimsical example or if this is
on your list of things we want to do.  It is rather amazing how quickly
he was able to insinuate himself into the inner circle.

My own view is that Balzer is a pain in the ass sometimes, but that he's
a fairly astute politician and that having him on the steering committee
-- not the technical committee -- might not be so bad.  If the rest of
you disagree, the obvious move would be to get Ohlander on that
committee instead, on the grounds that he is the senior ISI person who
will be most directly involved in the support effort, plus the fact that
he has been involved with Common Lisp for many years.  We clearly want
someone from the ISI support organization, and we clearly do not need
two such people.

-- Scott

quinquevirate/su
Flushing People

There are many reasons I'd like to jettison Balzer. First, the CL
community tends to not respect him. I got several complaints about
his CL Framework presentation, similar to the ones about his Monterey
presentation. Second, he has always tried to gain control of the Lisp
community; I know he tried this at the Utah (1980?) and the SRI (1981)
ARPA Lisp meetings. He doesn't give a hoot about technical details, only
his personal power base. Third, his research work has always been a little
on the bogus side. None of the work is his, mostly it's Neil Goldman's.
Fourth, he rubs people the wrong way. Fifth, his political savvy is mostly
centered around his personal situation; he is good at having water roll off
his back and little else. He is incapable of seeing anyone's point of view
except for the point of view of the person in the game with the most power.

I strongly resented him attending our lunch, because he was self-invited.
Fortunately, he spent all his time on the phone.
∂16-Dec-85  1338	RPG  	Flushing People    
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA   

There are many reasons I'd like to jettison Balzer. First, the CL
community tends to not respect him. I got several complaints about
his CL Framework presentation, similar to the ones about his Monterey
presentation. Second, he has always tried to gain control of the Lisp
community; I know he tried this at the Utah (1980?) and the SRI (1981)
ARPA Lisp meetings. He doesn't give a hoot about technical details, only
his personal power base. Third, his research work has always been a little
on the bogus side. None of the work is his, mostly it's Neil Goldman's.
Fourth, he rubs people the wrong way. Fifth, his political savvy is mostly
centered around his personal situation; he is good at having water roll off
his back and little else. He is incapable of seeing anyone's point of view
except for the point of view of the person in the game with the most power.

I strongly resented him attending our lunch, because he was self-invited.
Fortunately, he spent all his time on the phone.

∂16-Dec-85  1424	RPG  	In Fact...    
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA   
... moments after I sent the last note I got this unsolicited comment
from Alan Snyder of HP:

I would like to say that I found the second Common Lisp meeting to be much
better organized and more productive than the first.  I am at least hopeful
that things will progress...

However, I must say that I did not find Bob Balzer's report on his development
environment to be at all appropriate.  There are better forums for such a
report (where people specifically interested in programming environments would
more likely be), and the report occupied valuable time better used for more
pressing matters.  I recall that a similar thing happened in Monterey.  I hope
that the next Common Lisp meeting will not be misused as a forum for Bob to
present his research proposals and projects.

∂16-Dec-85  1528	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Flushing People        
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 16 Dec 85  15:26:49 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 16 Dec 85 18:26:42-EST
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1985  18:26 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12167669834.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Flushing People    
In-reply-to: Msg of 16 Dec 1985  16:38-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


Well, given Dick's position, I guess we should explore ways of
jettisoning Balzer.  Two problems that I can see:

1. Squires seems to be the one who is pushing Balzer into the center of
things, with Mathis following his lead.  I don't know how close those
two are, but we've got to get Squires to stop doing this, preferably
without causing any serious hard feelings.

2. Since the "services" are apparently to be done by ISI (a unilateral
decision by DARPA, despite what any of the rest of us would have
preferred) we have to somehow perform the Balzerectomy without
destroying any possibility that ISI will function properly to provide
the necessary services.  Replacing Balzer with Ohlander on the steering
committee might do the job, but only if this can be done without turning
Balzer into an ememy.  If the price of having ISI do the necessary work
is to put up with Balzer on the steering committee, I don't think we
have much choice but to accept this.

-- Scott

∂16-Dec-85  1554	Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	Flushing people  
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 16 Dec 85  15:53:55 PST
Received: from EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 375535; Mon 16-Dec-85 17:49:12-EST
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 85 17:44 EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Subject: Flushing people
To: quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12167591858.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Message-ID: <851216174437.3.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

    Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1985  11:18 EST
    From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>

    ....the obvious move would be to get Ohlander on that
    committee instead, on the grounds that he is the senior ISI person who
    will be most directly involved in the support effort, plus the fact that
    he has been involved with Common Lisp for many years.  We clearly want
    someone from the ISI support organization, and we clearly do not need
    two such people.

I don't know anything about politics, but I know what I like.

I never thought much of Balzer, and using the excuse that we shouldn't have
two people from ISI sounds good to me.

∂17-Dec-85  2212	Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	Alan Bawden 
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Dec 85  21:34:02 PST
Received: from EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 376555; Tue 17-Dec-85 21:36:20-EST
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 85 21:31 EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Subject: Alan Bawden
To: CL-ISO@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <851217213137.9.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

I talked to Alan Bawden about whether he might want to be on the Common Lisp
technical committee (I mentioned this last week to some of you).  He said that
his recent lack of presence in Common Lisp discussions was not due to lack of
interest, but due to unwillingness to deal with some of the bozoes on the
mailing list (I'm paraphrasing him here and may be doing someone a disservice).
He said he might be interested in being on the committee, unless it was so
much work that he would feel overcommitted, and depending on who else was
going to be on it.

We should keep him in mind, he has a lot of experience.

∂17-Dec-85  2237	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	Re: ISO 
Received: from USC-ISIF.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Dec 85  22:37:27 PST
Date: 17 Dec 1985 19:07-PST
Sender: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Subject: Re: ISO 
From: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: mathis@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF.ARPA]17-Dec-85 19:07:51.MATHIS>
In-Reply-To: The message of 16 Dec 85  1610 PST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>

We   should  include  recognized  international  experts  on  the
technical committee for ISO.  It is likely that US  members  will
dominate,  but this should not be done by excluding anybody.  You
know the technical community better than  I  do.   If  there  are
appropriate  people  from  the international community, we should
include them as soon as possible.  -- Bob Mathis

quinquevirate/su
ISO Committee Membership

In drafting the list of people on the technical committee, we must include
international representation as well as american. So says Mathis.

I talked to a manager at Xerox, and Bobrow is acceptable as the Xerox
representative (unless someone suddenly objects). This manager has the
power to stifle Masinter - that's why Masinter was not at the meeting
last week.

This Xerox manager objected to DLW and Moon both being on the committee.
I'm not sure I can manipulate him into acquiescing on this point.

I got some interesting mail from Utah, which is part of a discussion
among the Europeans. It seems their idea of a standard Lisp is a cros
between Scheme (good idea) and 3-Lisp (bad idea). Of course, they want a
formal semantics, which is tedious to do for a large language, so they
want a small language. I will forward that mail to you, but forward it
no further.
			-rpg-
∂18-Dec-85  0635	kessler%utah-orion@utah-cs.arpa 	ISO/European
Received: from UTAH-CS.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Dec 85  06:33:41 PST
Received: from utah-orion.ARPA by utah-cs.ARPA (5.5/4.40.2)
	id AA04199; Wed, 18 Dec 85 07:34:15 MST
Received: by utah-orion.ARPA (5.5/4.40.2)
	id AA10516; Wed, 18 Dec 85 07:34:11 MST
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 85 07:34:11 MST
From: kessler%utah-orion@utah-cs.arpa (Robert Kessler)
Message-Id: <8512181434.AA10516@utah-orion.ARPA>
To: rpg@su-ai.arpa
Subject: ISO/European

We have a contact that apparently is involved in the ISO standardization work.
Julian Padget is a professor at the University of Bath in England (John Fitch
is another professor with an account that they share - which is why the
strange return address).  Anyway,
the following are parts of some conversations between Julian and us.  Please
don't redistribute it, but it makes for interesting reading.  I think it might
give you some insight into what they are thinking:

	From Fitch%cs.ucl.ac.uk@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK Mon Dec 16 15:24:29 1985
	Received: from Cs (cs.ucl.ac.uk) by utah-orion.ARPA (5.5/4.40.2)
		id AA03657; Mon, 16 Dec 85 15:23:55 MST
	Message-Id: <8512162223.AA03657@utah-orion.ARPA>
	Date:     Mon, 16 Dec 85 22:19:07 GMT
	From: Fitch%cs.ucl.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
	To: shebs@utah-orion.arpa, kessler@utah-orion.arpa, galway@utah-orion.arpa
	Subject:  European common LISP
	Status: RO
	
	Thanks for the summary of the Boston meeting.  Any other tidbits will be
	welcome.  It may not come as much of a surprise to hear that John and I
	are the UK representatives on the European standardisation group.  You
	might even perceive my hand in the plan for a smaller and formally defined
	LISP!  The current schedule calls for us to meet on the first moday of
	every month (most likely in Paris at IRCAM (dial 4000 for Boulez)).
	
	The name for the language is EU-LISP, which when franglaised (pardon my
	verbing) is l'EU-LISP whic is not so different from Le-LISP!
	
	Presently our energies are directed toward trying to produce an operational
	semantics for EU-LISP (on the basis that denotational gets too complicated
	with all those stores, environments and continuations and is only meaningful
	to an expert, abstract semantic algebras and initial algebras are too
	darned hairy and group/category theoretic semantics, similarly, require too
	much background to be intelligible to the average implementor).
	
	No doubt you can also work out why Utah is somewhere we can trust - your
	(original) aims (you have recently been a little diverted!) do 
	coincide, in part, with ours.  The sooner Will gets over here the sooner
	he can go spend the weekend in Paris!!
	
	--Julian.
	
	PS: If you have suggestions/questions please fire away.
	
	
	From Fitch%cs.ucl.ac.uk@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK Tue Dec 17 08:02:31 1985
	Received: from Cs (cs.ucl.ac.uk) by utah-orion.ARPA (5.5/4.40.2)
		id AA06602; Tue, 17 Dec 85 08:02:00 MST
	Message-Id: <8512171502.AA06602@utah-orion.ARPA>
	Date:     Tue, 17 Dec 85 14:47:54 GMT
	From: Fitch%cs.ucl.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
	To: shebs <@UTAH-CS:shebs@utah-orion.arpa>
	Cc: galway@utah-orion.arpa, kessler@utah-orion.arpa
	Subject:  Re:  European common LISP
	Status: RO
	
	The intention is for something in the *spirit* of SCHEME and 3-LISP but
	without the iconiclasm.  Why do you believe that whatever we have to do is
	going to be a *subset* of Common LISP?  CL was not designed...nor was any
	consideration given to a need to subset - but I need hardly tell you lot 
	that; you have been through the manual and the problems many times.
	
	I am surprised you find denotational semantics straightforward or easy for
	CL.  BTW have you read the paper by Muchnick and Pleban in the 1980 LISP
	conference proceedings - that will show you how messy things can get.  Stores,
	environments and continuations are pleasant enough mathematical concepts (and
	a handy way of circumventing the problem), but trying to synthesize an
	implementation from such a description is not something I'd care to tackle
	before breakfast.
	
	Because I think it is important that many people be able to read the 
	definition once written and, more importantly, thereafter produce a
	working conforming system, operational semantics has greater appeal.
	
	λWe plan (the europeans that is) to implement our design in parallel on
	Le←LISP and Cambridge LISP (PSL if I had it!) a little behind the definition
	group.
	
	Would you mind explaining the remark in your summary of the Boston meeting that
	was along the lines of "...if it had been known that the Europeans did not
	approve of certain things in CL, a different decision might have been made".
	Apologies for paraphrasing you!  I have also had a report from Jerome of
	events - he said that Mathis was spouting anti-europeanisms and was
	particularly negative about the French.  Can you tell me what Mathis said 
	please?
	
	I shall be in Tampa for POPL - see you there?
	
	--Julian.
	
	
	From shebs Tue Dec 17 08:56:39 1985
	Received: by utah-orion.ARPA (5.5/4.40.2)
		id AA06835; Tue, 17 Dec 85 08:56:33 MST
	Date: Tue, 17 Dec 85 08:56:33 MST
	From: shebs (Stanley Shebs)
	Message-Id: <8512171556.AA06835@utah-orion.ARPA>
	To: @UTAH-CS:shebs@utah-orion.arpa, Fitch%cs.ucl.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
	Subject: Re:  European common LISP
	Cc: galway@utah-orion.arpa, kessler@utah-orion.arpa
	Status: RO
	
	Not to get into big arguments, but the main reason I favor Common
	Lisp is that it is by and large a conservative design.  Recall that
	the purpose of the standard is to facilitate porting programs around
	between different implementations.  If so, then compatibility with
	existing code is far more important than semantic elegance.  There
	is just too much Lisp code out there for anyone to say "you can't
	have a variable 'list' and use the function 'list' in the same scope",
	even if everybody fervently believed that single-cell Lisps were the
	way to go.  If this weren't a problem, Fortran and Cobol would be
	of purely historical interest and everybody would be running Lisp
	or some other wonderful and high-level language.  I would guess that
	there is maybe a million lines of Lisp code that would have to be
	converted, not to mention thousands of programmers.  Common Lisp
	isn't intended to be elegant; it's intended to be compatible.  If
	I write a CL program today, I know it will work on a dozen Lisps,
	but if I write a 3-Lisp program today, it won't run much of anywhere.
	I would save elegant languages for research and for future standards.
	As one of the Gang of 5 commented, "It's hard to test out things in
	your head".  I would add a corollary that "things that are easy to
	specify are not necessarily easy to use"...
	
	Enough of this - I'm planning to get warm in Tampa, so we can continue
	the diatribes (oops, I mean continue the discussion :-)!
	
								stan
	

∂18-Dec-85  0954	RPG  	ISO Committee Membership
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA   

In drafting the list of people on the technical committee, we must include
international representation as well as american. So says Mathis.

I talked to a manager at Xerox, and Bobrow is acceptable as the Xerox
representative (unless someone suddenly objects). This manager has the
power to stifle Masinter - that's why Masinter was not at the meeting
last week.

This Xerox manager objected to DLW and Moon both being on the committee.
I'm not sure I can manipulate him into acquiescing on this point.

I got some interesting mail from Utah, which is part of a discussion
among the Europeans. It seems their idea of a standard Lisp is a cros
between Scheme (good idea) and 3-Lisp (bad idea). Of course, they want a
formal semantics, which is tedious to do for a large language, so they
want a small language. I will forward that mail to you, but forward it
no further.
			-rpg-

∂18-Dec-85  0955	RPG  	European discussion
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA   

 ∂18-Dec-85  0635	kessler%utah-orion@utah-cs.arpa 	ISO/European
Received: from UTAH-CS.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Dec 85  06:33:41 PST
Received: from utah-orion.ARPA by utah-cs.ARPA (5.5/4.40.2)
	id AA04199; Wed, 18 Dec 85 07:34:15 MST
Received: by utah-orion.ARPA (5.5/4.40.2)
	id AA10516; Wed, 18 Dec 85 07:34:11 MST
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 85 07:34:11 MST
From: kessler%utah-orion@utah-cs.arpa (Robert Kessler)
Message-Id: <8512181434.AA10516@utah-orion.ARPA>
To: rpg@su-ai.arpa
Subject: ISO/European

We have a contact that apparently is involved in the ISO standardization work.
Julian Padget is a professor at the University of Bath in England (John Fitch
is another professor with an account that they share - which is why the
strange return address).  Anyway,
the following are parts of some conversations between Julian and us.  Please
don't redistribute it, but it makes for interesting reading.  I think it might
give you some insight into what they are thinking:

	From Fitch%cs.ucl.ac.uk@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK Mon Dec 16 15:24:29 1985
	Received: from Cs (cs.ucl.ac.uk) by utah-orion.ARPA (5.5/4.40.2)
		id AA03657; Mon, 16 Dec 85 15:23:55 MST
	Message-Id: <8512162223.AA03657@utah-orion.ARPA>
	Date:     Mon, 16 Dec 85 22:19:07 GMT
	From: Fitch%cs.ucl.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
	To: shebs@utah-orion.arpa, kessler@utah-orion.arpa, galway@utah-orion.arpa
	Subject:  European common LISP
	Status: RO
	
	Thanks for the summary of the Boston meeting.  Any other tidbits will be
	welcome.  It may not come as much of a surprise to hear that John and I
	are the UK representatives on the European standardisation group.  You
	might even perceive my hand in the plan for a smaller and formally defined
	LISP!  The current schedule calls for us to meet on the first moday of
	every month (most likely in Paris at IRCAM (dial 4000 for Boulez)).
	
	The name for the language is EU-LISP, which when franglaised (pardon my
	verbing) is l'EU-LISP whic is not so different from Le-LISP!
	
	Presently our energies are directed toward trying to produce an operational
	semantics for EU-LISP (on the basis that denotational gets too complicated
	with all those stores, environments and continuations and is only meaningful
	to an expert, abstract semantic algebras and initial algebras are too
	darned hairy and group/category theoretic semantics, similarly, require too
	much background to be intelligible to the average implementor).
	
	No doubt you can also work out why Utah is somewhere we can trust - your
	(original) aims (you have recently been a little diverted!) do 
	coincide, in part, with ours.  The sooner Will gets over here the sooner
	he can go spend the weekend in Paris!!
	
	--Julian.
	
	PS: If you have suggestions/questions please fire away.
	
	
	From Fitch%cs.ucl.ac.uk@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK Tue Dec 17 08:02:31 1985
	Received: from Cs (cs.ucl.ac.uk) by utah-orion.ARPA (5.5/4.40.2)
		id AA06602; Tue, 17 Dec 85 08:02:00 MST
	Message-Id: <8512171502.AA06602@utah-orion.ARPA>
	Date:     Tue, 17 Dec 85 14:47:54 GMT
	From: Fitch%cs.ucl.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
	To: shebs <@UTAH-CS:shebs@utah-orion.arpa>
	Cc: galway@utah-orion.arpa, kessler@utah-orion.arpa
	Subject:  Re:  European common LISP
	Status: RO
	
	The intention is for something in the *spirit* of SCHEME and 3-LISP but
	without the iconiclasm.  Why do you believe that whatever we have to do is
	going to be a *subset* of Common LISP?  CL was not designed...nor was any
	consideration given to a need to subset - but I need hardly tell you lot 
	that; you have been through the manual and the problems many times.
	
	I am surprised you find denotational semantics straightforward or easy for
	CL.  BTW have you read the paper by Muchnick and Pleban in the 1980 LISP
	conference proceedings - that will show you how messy things can get.  Stores,
	environments and continuations are pleasant enough mathematical concepts (and
	a handy way of circumventing the problem), but trying to synthesize an
	implementation from such a description is not something I'd care to tackle
	before breakfast.
	
	Because I think it is important that many people be able to read the 
	definition once written and, more importantly, thereafter produce a
	working conforming system, operational semantics has greater appeal.
	
	λWe plan (the europeans that is) to implement our design in parallel on
	Le←LISP and Cambridge LISP (PSL if I had it!) a little behind the definition
	group.
	
	Would you mind explaining the remark in your summary of the Boston meeting that
	was along the lines of "...if it had been known that the Europeans did not
	approve of certain things in CL, a different decision might have been made".
	Apologies for paraphrasing you!  I have also had a report from Jerome of
	events - he said that Mathis was spouting anti-europeanisms and was
	particularly negative about the French.  Can you tell me what Mathis said 
	please?
	
	I shall be in Tampa for POPL - see you there?
	
	--Julian.
	
	
	From shebs Tue Dec 17 08:56:39 1985
	Received: by utah-orion.ARPA (5.5/4.40.2)
		id AA06835; Tue, 17 Dec 85 08:56:33 MST
	Date: Tue, 17 Dec 85 08:56:33 MST
	From: shebs (Stanley Shebs)
	Message-Id: <8512171556.AA06835@utah-orion.ARPA>
	To: @UTAH-CS:shebs@utah-orion.arpa, Fitch%cs.ucl.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
	Subject: Re:  European common LISP
	Cc: galway@utah-orion.arpa, kessler@utah-orion.arpa
	Status: RO
	
	Not to get into big arguments, but the main reason I favor Common
	Lisp is that it is by and large a conservative design.  Recall that
	the purpose of the standard is to facilitate porting programs around
	between different implementations.  If so, then compatibility with
	existing code is far more important than semantic elegance.  There
	is just too much Lisp code out there for anyone to say "you can't
	have a variable 'list' and use the function 'list' in the same scope",
	even if everybody fervently believed that single-cell Lisps were the
	way to go.  If this weren't a problem, Fortran and Cobol would be
	of purely historical interest and everybody would be running Lisp
	or some other wonderful and high-level language.  I would guess that
	there is maybe a million lines of Lisp code that would have to be
	converted, not to mention thousands of programmers.  Common Lisp
	isn't intended to be elegant; it's intended to be compatible.  If
	I write a CL program today, I know it will work on a dozen Lisps,
	but if I write a 3-Lisp program today, it won't run much of anywhere.
	I would save elegant languages for research and for future standards.
	As one of the Gang of 5 commented, "It's hard to test out things in
	your head".  I would add a corollary that "things that are easy to
	specify are not necessarily easy to use"...
	
	Enough of this - I'm planning to get warm in Tampa, so we can continue
	the diatribes (oops, I mean continue the discussion :-)!
	
								stan
	

∂18-Dec-85  1223	DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	European discussion    
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Dec 85  12:19:49 PST
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 377243; Wed 18-Dec-85 15:07:29-EST
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 85 15:08 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: European discussion
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA, quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 18 Dec 85 12:55-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <851218150813.1.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

Well, it certainly looks as if even if the French are interested in a CL
subset, the British contingent (assuming this Fitch represents it) wants
to start designing a whole new language.  I'd say this casts severe
doubts on whether we can work through ISO after all.  I can't say I'm
surprised; it's so much more fun do design a new Lisp than to agree with
Americans to standardize on one that they already designed.

Should we consult Mathis at this point?

∂18-Dec-85  1913	SQUIRES@USC-ISI.ARPA 	Re: Varia Regarding the Meeting  
Received: from USC-ISI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Dec 85  19:13:30 PST
Date: 18 Dec 1985 22:12-EST
Sender: SQUIRES@USC-ISI.ARPA
Subject: Re: Varia Regarding the Meeting  
From:  Stephen L. Squires <SQUIRES@USC-ISI.ARPA>
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: squires@USC-ISI.ARPA
Message-ID: <[USC-ISI.ARPA]18-Dec-85 22:12:18.SQUIRES>
In-Reply-To: The message of 16 Dec 85  1603 PST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>

I have recommeded that the on the network policy be expaned to include
organizations that provide significant "support" to DARPA projects.
This may have to be handled through a special "$1" contract 
to formalize the relationship so that we do not open the door
to everyone.

I agree with Ron being on the Steering Committee.

What is your recommendation for Balzer's role besides keeping
on top of the support ISI will provide (which may be sufficient
involvement)?

I would like to have the first technical advisory meeting in 
January at DARPA to get the process started.

∂18-Dec-85  2125	RPG  	ISO 
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA   

Dan worries to much and too fast. When we approached people on Common
Lisp originally, they were doing their own things, and now we've managed
to sway most people. I know Padget a bit, and I'm not unfriendly with
Fitch. I think we need to convince them that Common Lisp is here to stay
and that they should concentrate on a clean substrate for their future
research. Europeans understand politics better than most Americans.

Xerox would like Bobrow on the committee. I assume there is no objection
to this. The management at Xerox seems eager to join in with Common Lisp
and to make up lost ground as fast as possible. Privately, the management
cannot believe the pig-headedness that the technical group at Parc
demonstrates.

I talked to Gary McGreal (an old volleyball compatriot who used to be at
ISI) who worked with Mathis on the ADA ISO committee. He believes that
Mathis's strength is that he is at the right place at the right time.
He is not forceful, and we will have to supply that. Gary states, `you
can easily dominate him.'

Squires wants we 5 to meet in January to solidify plans. Mid-January 
is fine with me - perhaps I need to travel to the East then anyway.

Here is a list of people that Moon, Weinreb, and I consed up:

Bobrow		Xerox
VanMelle	Xerox
Masinter	Xerox
Griss		HP
Kessler		Utah
Greenblatt	LMI
Foderaro	Franz
Pratt		LMI
Barber		Gold Hill
vanRoggen	DEC
Wegman		IBM
Fateman		Berkeley/Franz
Hedrick		Rutgers
McCarthy	Stanford (invented Lisp)
Clinger		Indiana
Meehan		Yale
Rees		MIT
Bawden		MIT

∂18-Dec-85  2206	JAR@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 	Common Lisp    
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Dec 85  22:06:32 PST
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 85 01:09:06 EST
From: Jonathan A Rees <JAR@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject:  Common Lisp   
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: JAR@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
In-reply-to: Msg of 18 Dec 85  2125 PST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].760459.851219.JAR>

    Date: 18 Dec 85  2125 PST
    From: Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>

    If asked to serve on the Common Lisp ISO committee, would you consider
    it? This is not an invitation, but I want to know whether to cross
    you off the list.

I would consider it and probably say no due to lack of time and
patience.  Don't cross me off the list before talking with me further.
Thanks.

Why not restrict the LISP: package to export only those things in the CL
manual, and not local language extensions?  I pose this as an example of
the kind of change I would require before considering the language
standardizable.  I suspect there are others, although I haven't thought
about it.

I think that someone like me with a little sympathy for a rigorous
approach to semantics could do a lot of good on such a committee, and my
opinion about the tractability of Common Lisp has changed somewhat in
recent months (in 1981 I said it was an absolutely lost cause, now I'm
not so sure).

jar@mc/su
ISO
We, at Lucid, have just gone through the hassle of putting into the Lisp
package only those things in CLtL, while our own extensions are in the
Lucid package. The Lisp package imports from the Lucid package. There
is too much opportunity for unfindable bugs if you don't do this. In fact,
I'm not sure we're gotten all the things in the right packages yet.
If I were a real user, I would not stand for a CL that didn't do this.

The mechanics of ISO will be to work on the ARPANET 90% of the time,
meeting face-to-face very rarely. We are all very busy, and we are interested
in top people. Please consider any invitation carefully. (Psst, maybe we can
sneak in continutations!!)
			-rpg-
∂19-Dec-85  0013	JAR@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 	ISO  
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Dec 85  00:13:20 PST
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 85 03:15:58 EST
From: Jonathan A Rees <JAR@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject:  ISO 
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: JAR@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
In-reply-to: Msg of 18 Dec 85  2216 PST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].760525.851219.JAR>

    Date: 18 Dec 85  2216 PST
    From: Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>

    We, at Lucid, have just gone through the hassle of putting into the Lisp
    package only those things in CLtL, while our own extensions are in the
    Lucid package. The Lisp package imports from the Lucid package. There
    is too much opportunity for unfindable bugs if you don't do this. In fact,
    I'm not sure we're gotten all the things in the right packages yet.
    If I were a real user, I would not stand for a CL that didn't do this.

I'm glad you agree.  Do you want to tell this to the mailing list or
should I?  I think it's very important.  Although taken all the way it
implies things like LAMBDA cannot have a definition as a function or
macro, and CAR cannot have a value, since of user A's code makes use of
the value cell of CAR, and user B depends on the value of CAR meaning
something interesting in the local implementation, A and B can't run
their code together.  The whole point of standardization is code sharing
right?  Wouldn't it be nice to be able to do it in the same address
space?

...Symbolics would have to retract their LAMBDA macro (or else, more
obviously, LAMBDA should become a macro in CL).

I would also like to have the home package of things exported by LISP:
defined to be LISP: .  Implementors will resist this, and it's less
important than the previous point, but I think it would be nice.  For
example, it makes shadowed symbol re-readable in different Common Lisp
implementations: suppose that Lucid CL's CAR is in the LUCID: package.
If you do
   (shadow 'car)
   (print 'lisp:car) 
you get LUCID:CAR.  Read the file in on your 3600 and you get "Do you want
to create a LUCID package," or, worse, one could exist which shadows CAR.

While I'm griping, what about the problem of package name conflicts?
Say I write a hairy program and call it LUCID, and of course put it in
the LUCID package.  I load it into your machine and it crashes Lisp.  We
need an agreed-upon domain-naming style naming convention, or
hierarchical package structure, or translation tables, or something.

    The mechanics of ISO will be to work on the ARPANET 90% of the time,
    meeting face-to-face very rarely. We are all very busy, and we are interested
    in top people. Please consider any invitation carefully.

Sounds doable.

    (Psst, maybe we can sneak in continutations!!)

If you think there's a mildly real chance of bringing in continuations,
I'll write a paper explaining what I know about how to implement them (the
pseudo-EGC hack, phantoms stacks, spaghetti, macaroni, etc.).  At the
very least they could have optional complex-number-like status, although
then why bother.

The only real problem I can see is defining their interaction with
UNWIND-PROTECT.  The only reasonable thing I can come up with is that
UNWIND-PROTECT should mean the same as GC-PROTECT or RECLAIM-PROTECT -
code which must get run at the soonest practically determinable point in
time that the stack frame is known to be inaccessible.  In the case of
random frames in the heap, only the GC is really capable of determining
whether a frame is still alive.  A Lisp which has "populations" can keep
track of all upwards continuations ever created so that users can
manually track them down without doing a GC, but this is pretty iffy
stuff, especially with all the unknowns of multiprocessors & concurrent
GC's.  ... Actually reclamation hacks arenn't really reasonable things
to specify, since they're semantically unsound (or complicated).  Any
ideas?

∂19-Dec-85  1006	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	ISO   
Received: from THINK.COM by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Dec 85  10:03:35 PST
Received: from jehosephat by GODOT.THINK.COM via CHAOS; Thu, 19 Dec 85 13:03:39 est
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 85 13:03 EST
From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
Subject: ISO 
To: quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 19 Dec 85 00:25-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-Id: <851219130353.0.GLS@THINK-JEHOSEPHAT.ARPA>

    Date: 18 Dec 85  2125 PST
    From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>

    Squires wants we 5 to meet in January to solidify plans. Mid-January 
    is fine with me - perhaps I need to travel to the East then anyway.

    Here is a list of people that Moon, Weinreb, and I consed up:


I have roughly ordered it here according to my own preferences, and have
added a few names (indicated by *).  The ordering is affected not only
by estimation of ability to make technical contributions, but also by
considerations of representation, such as not wanting too many reps from
the same place and needing to have a rep from particular places.

    Bobrow          Xerox
    Bawden          MIT
    Griss           HP
  * Ida, Masayuki
    Clinger         Indiana   [actually, he's at Tektronix, isn't he?]
  * Chailloux, Jerome
    Fateman         Berkeley/Franz
  * Padget or Fitch (or Norman?)
    Rees            MIT
    Wegman          IBM
    Hedrick         Rutgers
    McCarthy        Stanford (invented Lisp)
    Greenblatt      LMI
    Kessler         Utah
    Barber          Gold Hill
    vanRoggen       DEC
    Foderaro        Franz
    Meehan          Yale
    VanMelle        Xerox
    Masinter        Xerox
    Pratt           LMI

∂19-Dec-85  1056	DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	Japanese members  
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Dec 85  10:56:05 PST
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 378594; Thu 19-Dec-85 13:55:41-EST
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 85 13:54 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: Japanese members
To: gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA, quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <851219130353.0.GLS@THINK-JEHOSEPHAT.ARPA>
Message-ID: <851219135455.0.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

For Japanese representatives, we should also consider Yuasa and
Hagiya of Kyoto University.  These are the guys who implemented Kyoto
Common Lisp.  I don't know much about their abilities as language
designers, but at least they understand Common Lisp well, and consider
themselves part of the Common Lisp "school" of Lispers.  They're also
friendly and easy to get along with, and their English is good enough
that there wouldn't be any particular problems.

I don't know as much about Ida.  He's certainly a big Common Lisp
supporter, but I don't have much idea about him technically; maybe you
know more.  I don't know whether there is some Japanese force that would
tend to greatly prefer a Professor like Ida to a Grad Student like Yuasa
or Hagiya.

Takeuchi and Okuno from NTT are very bright and friendly guys too, but
because they are into their own language rather than Common Lisp, I'm
less inclined to propose their inclusion on the committee.

Then there's always Chikayama, of ICOT, who implemented Maclisp for the
IBM mainframes (UTILISP) and is designing ESP, the Fifth-Generation
Project language.  He's also very bright and knows about Lisp
implementations.  Hard to see an ICOT person on a Lisp standardization
committee, though!

∂19-Dec-85  1320	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	European discussion    
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Dec 85  13:20:10 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Thu 19 Dec 85 16:19:39-EST
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1985  16:19 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12168433134.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: European discussion
In-reply-to: Msg of 18 Dec 1985  15:08-EST from Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW at SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>


I don't really see the bizarre ideas of Fitch, et al, as a threat to the
ISI standardization effort.  If they want to go off by themsleves and
develop a schemeish Lisp, with or without ISO standardization, that's no
problem.  If they want to fight the French for control of the "little
Lisp" effort that's no problem (for us) either.

The only threat is if they should somehow end up being the ONLY ISO Lisp
effort, or if they want to use some name confusable with "Common Lisp"
for their thing, or if instead of doing something distinct and separate
from Common Lisp they want us to seriously consider their ideas in
defining the Common Lisp standard.  If any of those things happen, we
drop ISO like a hot potato and proceed to plan B, but I really don't see
any of these as being at all likely.

I'm happy either if our effort ends up being "ISO LISP" and there are no
other Lisps, or if our thing ends up being "ISO Common Lisp" and nothing
else has a name close to that.  Either way, we get our standard and
nobody gets confused by competing efforts.  In defining "our" Lisp, we
should be willing to listen to other groups, but we should not be in a
postion of having to give in to them if their goals do not coincide with
ours.  That's my bottom line.

-- Scott

∂19-Dec-85  1439	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Committee membership   
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Dec 85  14:39:37 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Thu 19 Dec 85 17:39:03-EST
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1985  17:38 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12168447585.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc:   fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Committee membership


I'm not sure at what point this discussion should move to CL-ISO to
include Mathis and Squires, but I guess sifting through a few
preliminary ideas with just the five of us couldn't hurt.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the steering committee:

Mathis		Definite
Squires		Definite
Ohlander	We need someone from ISI.  As I understand it, Ohlander
		will be in charge of the group that will include, among
		many other things, the Common Lisp support.  I think
		that all of us find him easier to deal with than Balzer.
		If Ohlander can't or won't do this, we have to think
		hard about whether to include Balzer.

Maybe those three are enough.  Perhaps we want to include someone with a
hard-core technical orientation in this group.  Possibilities might
inlcude Weinreb (if he is not on the technical comittee and wants to put
up with this hassle) or perhaps Gabriel (as the most political of the
gang of five).  I'm guessing that people won't care too much about this
body being representative, but if the issue is pressed, perhaps someone
like Gary Brown from DEC could be added as a token industrial type who
will do some work and who won't make trouble.  Maybe someone from TI or
IBM as well?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the technical committee:

I'm not sure how many of us were present at the time, but at one of the
lunches I raised with Weinreb and Moon the question of whether one of
them should perhaps step down so that it wouldn't look like the
committee was stacked in favor of Symbolics.  (Of course, the one to
step down would have as much influence in the technical discussions as
he ever had.  The only question is who spends time flying off to
meetings and who gets an official vote.  I don't expect any technical
issues to be decided by one vote, in any case.)  At the time, Weinreb
said that he would probably be the logical one to step down, and he
wouldn't mind that.  If he still feels that way, we can proceed on the
assumption that the technical committee starts with Gabriel, Steele,
Moon, and me.  (People don't seem to count me as a Lucid person, which
is good; I don't really count myself as a Lucid person when I'm dealing
with Common Lisp issues.)

Danny Bobrow seems to be a unanimous choice.  The only question might be
his willingness to serve on this committee.  We should go ahead and find
out about that.  If he joins, that takes care of Xerox.  If not, the
choices are probably Masinter, van Melle, or maybe Ken Kahn.  Masinter
is the obvious choice from among those three on merit, unless people
feel he is still harboring a grudge of some sort.  He would probably be
quite ticked if we chose one of the others, but couldn't complain if we
chose Bobrow.

I have great respect for Bawden, and if we were choosing strictly on
technical merit he'd have my vote.  However, we've got to worry about
perceptions, and I'm not sure what camp he identifies with.  Is he
connected with Symbolics at all, or is he strictly MIT?  And how is he
viewed by such people as Greenblatt and Hewitt?  The point is that
Greenblatt and Hewitt will both tend to raise hell if they feel
unrepresented, but having either of them (or Carette) on the committee
would be poisonous.  So finding some respected MIT person who is
reasonable but is not viewed as a stooge of Symbolics is politically
important.  Would Bawden fill this role?  If so, let's go for him.
If not Bawden, maybe Rees or Clinger (though the l;atter is no longer at
MIT).  Both are reasonable and, while they are deeply scheme-oriented,
seem to understand that there are good reasons why Common Lisp is not
Scheme.

Griss would be a good choice if he's interested in doing this.  I think
he's gotten over his early desire to subset and bend Common Lisp so that
it could be implemented on top of PSL.  Having someone from H-P is
politically useful.

Another constituency that might be worth including (though not
absolutely necessary) is Franz/Tektronix.  The problem there is in
finding someone.  I think that Fateman's beliefs (e.g. that not having a
standard would be just peachy, since it worked for Lisp 1.5) are just
too far from the rest of the community's for him to be a good choice.  I
know very little about Foderaro, but would prefer him sight-unseen.

On the international front, we need to talk to mathis about just when
these guys get folded in, and how many of them there should be.  Adding,
say Chailloux and Ida to the committee right away would be fine with me
WHEN and IF we can easily exchange netmail with them.  From what I've
seen about Padgett and Fitch, they don't belong on a Common Lisp
committee.  If we want to split into two groups, one for big Common Lisp
and one for some sort of subset, then probably all of these guys go with
the subset (plus Kessler).

Wegman?  I dunno.  The last time we talked, he still had a chip on his
shoulder about Common Lisp vs. VM.  Do we really need an IBM guy?  We'll
ahve some other industrial types, and other people keeping the world
safe for fixed instruction sets.

Hedrick is probably not a good choice just because he doesn't work well
with a group.

Kessler?  I don't know him.  Seems to me he is the ideal U.S.
representative to any subset effort that starts up.

McCarthy?  Would he be active or just a figurehead?  I don't know where
his head is at these days.  Does he like Common Lisp, or does he pine
for something more mathematically elegant?

Barber?  I haven't dealt with him technically.  Is he any good?  He's
probably the best choice if we need to take someone from Gold Hill.

I don't see anyone at DEC who would be terribly good.  Gary Brown isn't
very technical, and both Walter vanRoggen and Paul the Greek have about
as many bad ideas as good ones.  I don't see anyone very attractive at
DG or TI or Gould or Intermetrics either.  There are competent people at
all of these places, but not language designers.

Meehan?  Hmmm... he might be reasonable if we had no other schemers
aboard and wanted one.  Of course, Steele knows a bit about Scheme, or
did at one time.

Pratt?  Which Pratt is this working at LMI?  Not Vaughan Pratt, I
assume.

Skef Wholey and Rob maclachlan would also be excellent choices, except
that they are CMU'ers and therefore would appear to be redundant with
me.  Lots of other Symbolics and Lucid people as well.

So to me it looks like we should go for

Steele
Gabriel
Moon
Fahlman
Bobrow
Bawden (if he's not too much aligned with Symbolics)
Griss

and, when the time comes

Ida  (or one of the Kyoto guys)
Chailloux
other international types

Would that look reasonable to everyone, if we could get all of those
people?  We've got big companies, startups, and academics; original
Common Lispers and latecomers; microcoded and stock hardware of several
sorts.  That selection might not please Greenblatt and Hewitt, and it
might not please DEC, TI, Tektronix, and IBM.  But would it enrage them?

-- Scott

∂19-Dec-85  1522	RPG  	Committee Membership    
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA   

Bobrow and Xerox have been consulted, and I think he's willing
and Xerox is happy. Xerox does not want Masinter, nor do they
really want VanMelle.

I'm not sure what the steering committee does, so I don't know
who should be on it.

Moon has to be on the committee, but Weinreb is smoother. Weinreb
on the steering committee is probably good.

I quizzed Rees, and he might be interested - no committments on either
side as yet. Working by netmail helps him (and others) stomache the
possibility.

The Kyoto guys are too junior. Also, did you hear about their PROGV bug?

Chaillioux is a problem. He must be on the subset committee. On the
full committee he might be a problem to manage. He will be happy if
a formalist is on the CL committee. Rees can fulfill that role.

Kessler is good.  He might be quiet, but we'll need someone both
in the subset and the fullset committees.

McCarthy likes Common Lisp. He will vote for whatever I tell him to
vote for, so that might be stacking it too much. Perhaps he can be
an `honorary' member?

I worry about Fateman for the same reasons (and more) that Fahlman does.
He doesn't forget a slight against him, and he seeks revenge. Foderaro
is technically ok, but seems to be a company man in the worst sense.

Greenblatt? He's possibly manageable. Any other opinions on him?
It's Dexter Pratt, not Vaughan.

There is no one at TI worth mentioning except Harry Tenant, who is
not a Lisper.

I don't know Ida, so cannot say much for or against him.

			-rpg-

∂19-Dec-85  1631	DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	European discussion    
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Dec 85  16:31:36 PST
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 379025; Thu 19-Dec-85 19:32:10-EST
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 85 19:32 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: European discussion
To: Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU, quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12168433134.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Message-ID: <851219193221.1.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

The reason I'm worried is that, as I understand it, there will
presumably just be one ISO Lisp (maybe a nested subset family), not
several highly different ISO Lisps.  If we enter the ISO forum hoping to
make Common Lisp be ISO Lisp, but Common Lisp can't be accepted without
the agreement of various Europeans who think that ISO Lisp ought to be
something very different from Common Lisp, then we may not get anywhere.

Are you saying that there could be several ISO Lisp efforts, each
working on defining very different Lisps?  Are you sure, or should we
ask Mathis?  I admit that I still have very little idea how all this ISO
stuff really works.

∂19-Dec-85  1703	DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	Committee membership   
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Dec 85  17:02:50 PST
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 379046; Thu 19-Dec-85 19:57:30-EST
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 85 19:57 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: Committee membership
To: Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU, quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12168447585.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Message-ID: <851219195738.3.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

I find that I don't really know what the steering committee is, exactly.
What are its powers and responsibilities?  Is it unrelated to the ISO
process, only part of the ISO process and not part of anything else, or
something in between?

One of Moon or myself can step down if it becomes necessary to make
other parties happy.  However, I'd prefer to save this up for later in
the negotiation process rather than doing a "preemptive surrender".  Let
them think that they twisted our arms, and then they'll feel they've
done their duty to "protect" their companies, and they'll go away happy
instead of insisting on putting George Carrette on the technical
committee and so forth.  I do think we'll be forced into this at some
point, so it's OK if you want to plan for it internally, but outside the
quinquevirate let's still assume that all five of us are in, for now.

I've spoken with people here about Balzer, and Gabriel's impressions are
shared.  I think we should try hard to keep him out of any position of
real control or responsibility.  I'm not an experienced politician, but
I think it would be better to keep him involved in the CL stuff
somewhere, rather than try to evict him entirely and make an enemy of
him.  Having him involved in the "services" without actually being on
the steering committee (whatever that is) might be the right compromise.

Ohlander does sound better than Balzer, from the little knowledge I
have.  Gabriel has dealt with Ohlander extensively over the last few
years and so could tell us more.

I still think we should keep the steering committee small, and try to
make sure it doesn't also get into the game of "my company needs to be
directly represented".  So far I haven't heard any objections to keeping
it small.

I don't know whether Masinter is harboring any grudges, but I have
generally found him to be difficult to deal with.  He's hard to
understand.  When he tries to explain technical points to me, I usually
can't see what he's getting at, I think because he doesn't maintain a
good model of what I know and what I don't know, the way a teacher has
to do.  I've also found him to be even more opinionated than we are,
although that might just be an impression due to the communication
problem.  I do, however, suspect that he is harboring a general grudge,
that he feels he's been forced into dealing with Common Lisp and he
doesn't want to.  That's just a suspicion.

Bawden is not connected with Symbolics in any way.  He worked at
Symbolics as a summer employee a few years ago, writing bignum code, and
that's the only connection he's ever had.  As far as I know he has never
been in this building.  I hardly ever see him any more, usually only at
parties.  The mail he sends to Symbolics tends to be vicious and flaming
("it's been three years, and you still haven't done anything about my
favorite pet peeve number sixteen!").  So it's hard to see how anybody
could think that he represented Symbolics.

I agree that we had better have someone from HP.  If you and Steele both
think Griss is a good choice, then it sounds good to me.  I don't really
know him.

Perhaps our west coast representative could try to get together with
Fodorero somehow and sound him out.  Unfortunately, Lucid and Franz are
apparently considered to be Competitiors, so it might be tricky, but who
am I to tell Gabriel about politics?

What was Wegman's complaint re VM?  Was it technical things, like how
it's hard to do the Common Lisp I/O system on VM because VM's model of
I/O is so different?  I am forced to admit that as long as we claim that
we're trying to make EBCDIC work and all that, maybe we really do have
to do something about IBM-oriented I/O.  But maybe that's not what you
mean about Wegman.

The Pratt in question is Dexter Pratt.  Maybe Moon remembers more than I
do about him.  My memory tells me that at MIT, his job was to actually
assemble CADRs.  I could be confusing him with someone else.

The list at the end of your message looks good.  I suppose people from
those companies can be outraged no matter what we do.  But given that we
don't want the committee to be too big, and that we need international
participation, there is a very limited number of slots available.  I
don't see reasonable grounds for anyone to be outraged.  That's probably
the strongest thing we can hope to say.

∂19-Dec-85  1826	DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	Committee Membership        
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Dec 85  18:25:05 PST
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 379125; Thu 19-Dec-85 21:25:07-EST
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 85 21:25 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: Committee Membership    
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA, quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 19 Dec 85 18:22-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <851219212518.0.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

Gee, I hope somebody knows what the steering committee does.

OK, if the Kyoto guys are junior then I think Ida would be a good
choice, from a political point of view.  He's definitely very much
pro-Common Lisp, and is already trying to get it established as a
standard in Japan.  He also was in charge of getting the Japanese
translation created (has anybody noticed any other translations yet?).
If we're going to be international, we need someone from Japan, and I
think he's the only remaining candidate.

In my experience, I have found Greenblatt to be a generally good person.
Although sometimes vague, if you keep asking him questions you can
usually figure out what he's talking about.  However, he's generally
frustrating to work with.  He gets strange ideas in his head and sticks
to them stubbornly.  He is a great programmer in the sense of generating
lots of working code quickly, but he is a poor programmer in the sense
of elegance and style.  It took us years, for example, to get him to
admit that there was some merit in using DO rather than PROG for
straightfowards iteration.  We never got him to use 2-d arrays; he felt
they were inherently expensive, and always rolled his own out of 1-D
arrays.  When I started working with him, he was a dyed-in-the-wool
assembly language programmer.  He has definitely improved since then,
but the idea of him as a Lisp language designer still doesn't seem right
to me.

∂20-Dec-85  1203	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	European discussion    
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Dec 85  12:03:11 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Fri 20 Dec 85 14:32:58-EST
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1985  14:20 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12168673594.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   "Daniel L. Weinreb" <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Cc:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: European discussion
In-reply-to: Msg of 19 Dec 1985  19:32-EST from Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW at SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>


Well, if there's just one ISO Lisp and it's not us, or if we even have
to make major compromises, then we move on to plan B.  I don't see why
that should be the case, however.  Common Lisp and Scheme are easily as
different in their details and their goals as, say, Pascal and Ada.  And
even if it must all be "Lisp", other languages have multiple levels, so
the French subset proposal (if it remains a subset) could fit in there
very nicely.

We'll have to discuss this with Mathis, but I think that our working
assumption is that we can propose multiple standards if that makes
sense.

-- Scott

∂20-Dec-85  1202	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Committee membership   
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Dec 85  12:02:40 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Fri 20 Dec 85 14:32:55-EST
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1985  14:15 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12168672730.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   "Daniel L. Weinreb" <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Cc:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Committee membership
In-reply-to: Msg of 19 Dec 1985  19:57-EST from Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW at SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>


My understanding of the steering committee, from a brief discussion with
Mathis, is that it is their job to interface to ISO, to prepare
schedules and such, to deal the international politics as necessary, and
to do any other formalisms that have to be done.  The key is that they
accept as their charter to get Common Lisp approved as defined by the
technical committee (us, plus whoever we add).

The strategy of holding Wienreb's withdrawal in reserve is an
interesting one.  The argument on the other side is that if we come up
with this ourselves it will look like we're trying very hard to balance
this thing and be fair to everyone, rather than doing the bare minimum.
That might actually be better psychology, as it could take the wind out
of the sails of the opposition early rather than late.  But I'm happy to
go with keeping all five of us as an initial proposal.

If we get Ohlander, Balzer isn't an issue.  If we get Bobrow, Masinter
isn't an issue.  Adding both Bawden and Rees looks like an inordinate
amount of skew toward MIT.  I've got no real objection, and respect them
both, but it does look unbalanced to me.

Sounds like we're more or less agreed that neither Fateman nor Foderaro
is really a good choice.  It's awkward not having anyone from the
Franz/Tektronix camp, especially since they feel left out and Fateman is
the type to bitch about that.  But I guess we can't give people votes
just because they are complainers.  If we have Bobrow and Griss aboard,
plus maybe Rees, they can't very well accuse us of excluding the
latecomers.

Wegman was just going around saying that his Lisp/VM was nicer than
Common Lisp in this and that respect, and pointing out all the places
where we blew it.  Pure NIH, compounded by the fact that we didn't make
contact with those guys early enough to bring them aboard.  (It never
occurred to me in those days that IBM might be interested in this
stuff.)

I don't know anything about Dexter Pratt.  Seems to me that if someone
has never sent a message to Common Lisp and has no other claim to fame
(e.g.  invented some other major Lisp), that's grounds for
disqualification.  He'd be easier to deal with than Greenblatt (anyone
would be) but that's not sufficient.

-- Scott

∂21-Dec-85  1731	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Varia   
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Dec 85  17:30:58 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Sat 21 Dec 85 20:30:57-EST
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1985  20:30 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12169003165.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Varia


Does anyone have a netmail address that works for Chaillioux?  (And is
that the way it is spelled?)  How about Ida.  I'd just like to see if we
can send them mail before we think too hard about how to relate to them.
If we can't send mail, we must avoid creating any structure that would
require them to be kept tightly in the technical-discussion loop.

It's probably time to start bouncing our ideas on committee structure
off Squires and Mathis, as well as just each other.

Is anyone planning to send mail to Common-Lisp describing what happened
at the meeting.  I think that the people who didn't get there sort of
expect this.  I'll do it if nobody else wants to.

-- Scott

∂21-Dec-85  2108	SQUIRES@USC-ISI.ARPA 	Re: ISO etc  
Received: from USC-ISI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Dec 85  21:07:51 PST
Date: 21 Dec 1985 13:28-EST
Sender: SQUIRES@USC-ISI.ARPA
Subject: Re: ISO etc  
From:  Stephen L. Squires <SQUIRES@USC-ISI.ARPA>
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: squires@USC-ISI.ARPA
Message-ID: <[USC-ISI.ARPA]21-Dec-85 13:28:53.SQUIRES>
In-Reply-To: The message of 18 Dec 85  2116 PST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>


I will try to address each of the points you made:

1.  I am sensitive to the Balzer issue.  His role on Common LISP
standardization will be strictly in a supporting capacity since some
people in his division of ISI will be dealing with collecting and
preparing the validation suite.  Balzer is not not interested in
being part of the standization process.  I do expect him to be a
significant user of Common LISP as part of some projects in advanced
programming environments which are AI-based.  The purpose of the CLF
presentation was to give an example of an advanced environment that
could benefit from an explicit object model in LISP.

2.  I would like Ron Ohlander to be part of the small steering committee
that would help to guide the various Common LISP activities including
providing guidance to the validation work.  The actual administrative
support including network mail and archieving and distribution services
will require the support of the computing center within ISI that is 
currently part of Ron's responsibility.

3.  The BBN Bfly issue continues to amaze me.  They appear to be resisting
all attempts to make the Bfly useful that involve developing any system
software outside BBN.  (I have a problem in taking direct action because
of the fact that this part of the project is currently the responsibility
of the infamous Engineering Applications Office.)  A latter from LUCID
that describes the offer that you described addressed to me may help me
to document the situation and resolve it.  I believe there needs to be
a graceful transition path from Common LISP workstations to the coarse
grain multiprocessors so that the developers can focus on the significant
issues.  I have taken the position that this needs to be a high quality
implementation of LISP, should support message passing initially, and
needs to be available as soon as possible.  The BBN approach is clearly
to high risk and too far off in the future to satisfy this need.  What
BBN is currently involved in is parallel LISP research project which
is not coordinated with any technology base activities in IPTO.

4.  Network access needs to be handled carefully because of the increasing
number of people that want to be on the network.  The relation to Stanford
is a much better path than with ISI.

Thanks for your candid comments!

∂23-Dec-85  1014	RPG  	Varia on ISO  
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA   

I played some cards with Squires, and Balzer is jettisoned in favor
of Ohlander on the steering committee.

Chailloux's  net address is:

mcvax!inria!chaillou@seismo.CSS.GOV

which works within 24 hours.

∂23-Dec-85  1044	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Varia on ISO      
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 23 Dec 85  10:44:50 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 23 Dec 85 13:44:53-EST
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1985  13:44 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12169453530.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Varia on ISO  
In-reply-to: Msg of 23 Dec 1985  13:14-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


Congratulations on your card-playing.  Presumably we still have to get
Ohlander to agree to this, and find some way of telling Balzer this
without making an ememy of him, but having Squires agree to this is a
start.

-- Scott

∂24-Dec-85  1207	RPG  	Committee members  
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA   
Why should someone be on the ISO committee? Clearly because he can
make a contribution and has an interest. Companies seem to think their
interest overrides their ability to provide someone of standing in the
Lisp community. Perhaps we should think in terms of credentials and
logical groups, making membership something very hard to achieve.

Special-purpose hardware:

These folks are represented by Moon, who is among the very best Lisp
people. LMI has no interest other than commercial that is not represented
by Symbolics.

Stock Hardware:

These folks are represented by me and by Fahlman. Lucid's technical interests
are the same as Franz's. Also, they have no one to offer technically. Recall:
They were the people who gave the world *FRANZ* *LISP*. Griss has always
been a nay-sayer and was only interested in making portable STANDARD Lisp the
COMMON Lisp. It is not evident he did much of the heavy-duty implementation, 
either.

Universities:

Why do they need representation? Suppose they do; Fahlman represents them.

Groups with other interests, like OOP:

Bobrow represents a new view on OOP. He has long standing and high standing in
the community.

Groups who prefer small computers:

We need these folks to get by the Europeans. Chailloux can do that; so can
Kessler. Kessler also would like to make PSL the Common Lisp subset. It's
hard to tell how much real implementation he's done.

Formalists:

These guys can lend an air of respectability to the cause.

So, how about this:

	RPG
	Fahlman
	Moon
	Steele
	Rees   (formalist)
	Kessler
	Chailloux
	Bobrow

We ought to have more people, I guess. We can buy some credits by easing
DLW off the committee. I might suggest Wegman, but he might be too much to
handle. Also, Wegman would only represent the LISP/VM group and not IBM.
Corporate IBM regards them as out of the mainstream of IBM's Lisp interests.
So why bow towards that group at all?

TI? They have no one.

Gold Hill? They have no one.

Expertelligence? Give me a break.

Tektronix? Are you kidding?

If we leave DLW on the committee, we would have 9.

∂27-Dec-85  1501	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Committee members      
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Dec 85  15:01:49 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Fri 27 Dec 85 18:01:50-EST
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1985  18:01 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12170548890.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Committee members  
In-reply-to: Msg of 24 Dec 1985  15:07-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


I just got back from a few days with my family and saw Dick's analysis.
I basically agree with him that technical merit ought to be more
important than representing every group that might otherwise complain.
I would add just one twist to Dick's criteria, however: I think that
where a major constituency (such as stock hardware) is concerned, it is
best to have two obviously independent voices.  That makes it hard to
say, "Well, the only stock hardware guys are from Lucid and we all know
that those guys have a weird point of view."  Including both Moon and
Bobrow gives us two independent perspectives on microcodable machines,
with me providing part of a third one (from my work with the Perq).
The big hole that I see is someone who has done some practical
implementation work, preferably from industry, on stock hardware, and
who has nothing to do with Lucid.  People would view me as coming from
the same direction, even though that is not altogether true.  Griss
fills the bill here, and while he hasn't been all that active in Common
Lisp, he is not terribly hard to get along with.  Other suggestions to
fill the same niche?

An issue I have been thinking a lot about is whether to follow Weinreb's
suggestion that we keep him on our proposed committee, for use as a
bargaining chip if we need one, or whether we should drop him ourselves.
The more I think about it, the more I think that we should have only one
hard-core Symbolics person in the group we propose.  I've never liked
bargaining chips.  We've told the community "Trust us.  We'll do our
very best to come up with a committee that is as fair as we can make it,
while still keeping the size down and including only people of high
competence and standing in the community."  A lot of people will look at
our proposal and, if it is reasonably fair, go away reasonably happy or
at least without a lot of sympathy for any complaints they may have.  If
the list we produce seems self-serving, we might never have a chance to
bargain; people who are disgruntled might just give up on us.  Or if we
do start making concessions, it might be hard to stop.  I would much
prefer to produce a list that I am convinced is as fair as we can make
it, and then fight hard for that list.  And I wouldn't feel good
fighting for both Moon and Weinreb, when so many of Symbolics' direct
competitors have nobody on the committee.

(Once again, this has nothing to do with Weinreb's talent, for which I
have great regard.  The issue is solely one of double representation for
Symbolics; if Moon were not also on the committee, I would fight hard to
include Weinreb.)

So, RPG's list looks fine to me, excpet that we should add either Griss
or someone else from industry who does stock hardware implementations.
And we should discuss with Mathis (and eventually with Chailloux) how to
structure things so that one group thinks about Common Lisp and another
thinks about subsets or smaller languages.  I don't know Rees or Bawden
well enough to know which of these we want most (or maybe both).

-- Scott

∂27-Dec-85  1553	DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	Committee members      
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Dec 85  15:53:43 PST
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 382315; Fri 27-Dec-85 18:53:10-EST
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 85 18:54 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: Committee members  
To: Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU, quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12170548890.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Message-ID: <851227185408.9.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

This all sounds good to me.  I agree with your analysis about the
bargaining chip point.

I don't know where to come up with another good stock hardware Lisp
implementor who isn't already on the committee and doesn't work for
Lucid or Symbolics and isn't likely to in the near future.  What stock
hardware Lisp exists such that it is at all serious, was done in
industry (or has been migrated out to industry), was not based heavily
on Spice, and isn't from Lucid?  After rejecting individuals who we've
already been pretty down on, it seems that HP Common Lisp is the one
best qualified to fill your criteria.  Politically, I think it makes a
lot of sense to have someone from HP, so that some other large company
besides Xerox is represented, although I agree that this is really
subsidiary to getting good technical representation.

Is Griss the only candidate?  RPG feels that he's a "nay-sayer" and
mainly interested in PSL.  HP clearly is going away from PSL towards CL,
and I don't know how Griss is affected by that.  Who was the heavy-duty
implementor of HP's Common Lisp?

∂27-Dec-85  1700	RPG  	Chips    
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA   

Of course, because one plays one's trump card early doesn't make it
any less of a trump card. If we trim DLW out now, it probably has more
effect than if we cleverly do it later.

In my case, I will rely on the technical resources of Lucid to help me
with technical issues in our discussions, much as senators bring aids to
Meet the Press. Similarly, I would presume that DLW would still be as
involved in Common Lisp as ever. 

I've worked with Griss often in the past; he has always been a little down
on Common Lisp, but mainly because of its size. He personally worked on
the precursor to PSL, which was a proto-PSL, not Standard Lisp.  Benson
claims that he (EB) and a few others completely re-wrote this proto-PSL.
Benson claims that Griss was on top of everything that went on technically
in the re-implementation and that Griss could probably have fixed any
problems in it. I think this says a lot, because Benson, incidentally,
does not like Griss.

I'm happy having Griss. But does this mean we should flush Kessler?
Kessler is easier to get along with, but lighter-duty than Griss. Both
are PSLers.

So the list looks like:

	Gabriel
	Fahlman
	Moon
	Steele
	Griss
	Rees
	Chailloux
	Bobrow
	Ida

What about a Brit? There is Fitch, but, as I recall, he submitted a
paper to the last Lisp conference that was rejected (POPL took it, though).
He's into Scheme, 3-Lisp, dynamic binding, and closures over dynamic
variables. Can we deal with this? Also, what about Wegman?

I think the list above is pretty first-class (with the exception of the
first person on the list, who is only there because he can play politics).

			-rpg-

∂27-Dec-85  2024	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Chips        
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Dec 85  20:24:04 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Fri 27 Dec 85 23:24:09-EST
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1985  23:24 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12170607566.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Chips    
In-reply-to: Msg of 27 Dec 1985  20:00-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


My thanks to Weinreb for being so flexible on this.

The non-Lucid stock hardware implementations come from DEC, DG, H-P,
Tektronix/Franz, Intermetrics, Gould, Gold Hill...that's all I can think
of for now.  Franz has some people who have at least participated in the
design discussions surrounding Common Lisp, but we've discussed those
problems.  The others (except H-P) don't seem to have any good language
designers, though there are some decent compiler writers out there.  All
of the above started from CMU's sources except for Gold Hill and
probably Franz.

The situation at H-P is a bit odd.  The Common Lisp comes from a
compiler gorup at Fort Collins -- they just started from CMU's sources
and put some competent compiler jocks on the case, as far as I can tell.
No language design talent in that group, that I can see.  But the H-P
Labs people have a number of good Lispers, of whom I would rate Griss
the one with the most experience and perspective.  They've all been
stuck in PSL in the past, but now that H-P is committed to Common Lisp
and has a good one, I think they'll all come over to our point of view
rather quickly once they've wallowed in the language awhile.

Of course, we need to verify that Girss is interested in this, if we
decide that we actually want him.  Same for Rees, I think.

If we have representatives from H-P and Xerox, I think that the other
big companies would be happy -- big companies are represented, and no
one big company has a monopoly.

I don't think Wegman is a good choice.  He is a good implementor, but I
don't think he knows or likes Common Lisp, he has never participated in
meetings or netmail discussions, and I don't think that most of the
factions at IBM would be pleased to have him "representing" them.  My
group at CMU probably has more to do with the future of Lisp within IBM
than Wegman/Yorktown does -- we're doing prototypes that will end up
being polished either by outside vendors or by development groups within
the product divisions.  So my guess is that if we asked the higher-ups
at IBM what they would like from us, Wegman would not be at the top of
the list.

If this ends up being one big committee, we can't afford to have both
Griss and Kessler aboard (unless we add a couple of puppets of our own
to balance things out).  But, depending on what Mathis has to say, I
think we may want to go with two distinct (but friendly) committees, one
to deal with (big) Common Lisp and the other to do a smaller Lisp.  In
that case, we might move Ida, Kessler, and Chailloux, plus some others
to be named later, to the small-Lisp committee.  Then the big-Lisp
committee looks like

    	Gabriel
    	Fahlman
    	Moon
    	Steele
    	Griss
    	Rees
    	Bobrow

Or maybe it's all one committee formally, but we agree among ourselves
to specialize in this way.

I don't know any Brits who care about Common Lisp except purely as
spectators.  Jeff Dalton from Edinburgh was at the conference as the
sole SERC (British NSF) observer, but he's not in a class with the
people listed above.  Fitch would presumably only be interested in the
small-Lisp committee.  All the Brits of any repute are into either
POP-whatever or Prolog.  I'm not sure if we have to pick total unknowns
from various countries, but let's not worry about that until Mathis
tells us we have to.

-- Scott

∂29-Dec-85  0928	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Committee membership   
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 29 Dec 85  09:28:47 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Sun 29 Dec 85 12:28:53-EST
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1985  12:28 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12171012568.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Committee membership


I think it is time that we move the discussion of committee membership
to the ISO mailing list.  We need some input from Mathis on the
international issues, and I think that both he and Squires are probably
wondering what we're up to.

If the rest of you agree, I will compose a message to CL-ISO summarizing
our discussions so far.

I have opened up some correspondence with Chailloux about what he really
wants to do in the way of a subset and why, and also sounding him out on
whether he thinks the subset stuff should be done by a separate
committee.  I haven't received his reply on this yet.

-- Scott

∂29-Dec-85  1220	Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	Committee membership  
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 29 Dec 85  12:20:46 PST
Received: from EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 382580; Sun 29-Dec-85 15:19:54-EST
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 85 15:14 EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Subject: Committee membership
To: Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
cc: quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12171012568.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Message-ID: <851229151439.0.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

    Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1985  12:28 EST
    From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>

    If the rest of you agree, I will compose a message to CL-ISO summarizing
    our discussions so far.

That's fine with me.

∂29-Dec-85  1334	RPG  	Committee
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA   
I think we ought to chat with the folks we've tentatively outlined
as members to make sure they would agree to serve. Griss is very busy,
and he might assume that if we've asked him that we would accept a
substitute he named, which I would be disinclined to do - there is
no one else at HP with the stature we require. Rees expressed some
concern about the time committment. Chailloux would probably serve,
but one can not know whether he would prefer the subset committee
post instead.

I can send messages to each of these people, if you wish.

			-rpg-

∂29-Dec-85  1535	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Committee    
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 29 Dec 85  15:35:35 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Sun 29 Dec 85 18:35:32-EST
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1985  18:35 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12171079315.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Cc:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Committee
In-reply-to: Msg of 29 Dec 1985  16:34-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


We obviously have to contact these people before we go public with any
list, but it seems to me that the proper order is first for the gang of
seven to decide who we want on the committee, and then to ask the
nominees if they want to serve.  It's a bit awkward in some cases to ask
a person if he would be willing to serve, and then to decide that we
don't want the person after all.  Probably Mathis and Squires just
rubber-stamp what we want to do, but they might have some ideas of their
own that we should hear before approaching poeple.  I'd especially like
to hear what Mathis thinks about Chailloux and the French connection.

-- Scott

∂29-Dec-85  1601	RPG  	Order of events    
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA   
Ok, so is this the order of events?

	1. Fill in Squires and Mathis on the technical committee
	   reasoning and people
	2. Figure out the strategic committee
	3. Figure out the subset committee
	4. Ask the potential members
	5. Announce on CL-Charter

			-rpg-

∂29-Dec-85  2149	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Order of events        
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 29 Dec 85  21:49:13 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 30 Dec 85 00:49:12-EST
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1985  00:49 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12171147340.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Cc:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Order of events    
In-reply-to: Msg of 29 Dec 1985  19:01-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


Yeah, that's the order I would propose.  Followed by step 6: ride out
the storm of complaints, and if any of them actually seem valid or
likely to sink the whole effort, make some adjustments.

-- Scott

∂30-Dec-85  0915	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	Chips      
Received: from THINK.COM by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Dec 85  09:15:09 PST
Received: from yon by GODOT.THINK.COM via CHAOS; Mon, 30 Dec 85 12:15:20 est
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 85 12:15 EST
From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
Subject: Chips    
To: quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 27 Dec 85 20:00-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-Id: <851230121525.5.GLS@THINK-YON.ARPA>

(1) This list looks very good to me, except that I would also very much
like to get Bawden involved (maybe if Rees declines?).

	    Gabriel
	    Fahlman
	    Moon
	    Steele
	    Griss
	    Rees
	    Chailloux
	    Bobrow
	    Ida

(2) I think Griss is overall very competent technically and fairly
reasonable to work with.  There are great advantages to having a
representative of HP and of PSL.  I don't think Kessler would be nearly
as good for the purposes of this committee.

(3) With respect to DLW, I also think that it is better just to try very
hard to do the right thing the first time than to give any appearance of
playing games.  I too hope Dan will continue to be active.  Inasmuch as
the committee discussions will probably be mostly open (that is, held on
the net), I think the only effect is that "Symbolics" will have one vote
on the committee instead of two when official votes are taken.  In
particular, there is no reason that people who are not official
committee members but nevertheless make important contributions cannot
be appropriately recognized in reports.

(4) I am against trying to create a "subset committee ghetto" before the
fact.  Interest in subsets is an important point of view that should be
represented on the main committee.  (Furthermore, I think the subset
interests and the full-language interests ought to keep tabs on each
other.)  If a certain part of the main committee naturally gravitates
into a corner to work separately on the subset issue, that's another
matter.

(5) It would be a nice gesture, if nothing else, to ask McCarthy.  Also
it might make the committee much more credible on the international
scene to have the original inventor of the language on its roster.  (As
a friend I would then advise him not to waste his time, but he might
really want to be involved.  Let him decide.)

(6) Just as a suggestion from left field, what would you think of Robert
"Corky" Cartwright?  He has served on the program committee for a Lisp
conference.  He's a sharp semi-outsider who is fairly up on theory and,
as far as I can tell, has no axe to grind.  (But he may not want to
invest the effort.)  Scherlis could serve the same purpose, but then
there would be duplication from CMU.  Cartwright would represent a
university outside the MIT/Stanford/CMU triangle.

In summary, I propose:

	    Gabriel
	    Fahlman
	    Moon
	    Steele
	    Griss
	    Rees
	    Chailloux
	    Bobrow
	    Ida
	    McCarthy
	    Cartwright
	Alternate: Bawden

which makes 11 members (my favorite size) and an alternate choice in
case one declines.

--Guy

∂30-Dec-85  0924	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	Open meetings   
Received: from THINK.COM by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Dec 85  09:24:22 PST
Received: from yon by GODOT.THINK.COM via CHAOS; Mon, 30 Dec 85 12:24:30 est
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 85 12:24 EST
From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
Subject: Open meetings
To: quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA
Message-Id: <851230122435.6.GLS@THINK-YON.ARPA>

At both the Common Lisp meetings and the ANSI C meetings I have
attended, it is clear that something like 60% of the people are there
not really to contribute but to monitor the proceedings on behalf of
their companies to make sure they don't miss anything.  (While they have
votes, they vote in very predictable ways, often with each following a
"leader" they perceive as having similar interests. Mostly it makes each
company feel good to think that they have a vote that could help to
defeat some outrageous proposal.  In practice their votes have little
effect.)

It may help, in proposing a technical committee, to re-emphasize that
most of the committee discussions will be held by network, and all
interested parties will, in effect, have access to complete transcripts
of meetings.  Therefore not having a representative on the committee
doesn't imply lack of access to information.  (Got that?)

We will also have to have some kind of formal mechanism from the start
for distinguishing between "well, all the committee members seem to have
agreed on issue X" and "the following is the result of an official vote
of the technical committee and will be included in the next set of
language changes".  We don't want people trying to track the meeting in
real time to feel that they were misled about which way the committee
was going to jump.

--Guy

∂30-Dec-85  0930	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Chips        
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Dec 85  09:29:57 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 30 Dec 85 12:30:01-EST
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1985  12:29 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12171274917.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   Guy Steele <gls@AQUINAS.THINK.COM>
Cc:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Chips    
In-reply-to: Msg of 30 Dec 1985  12:15-EST from Guy Steele <gls at THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>


Asking McCarthy sounds like a good suggestion.  Couldn't hurt, and he is
certainly of sufficient stature in the Lisp world.

I've never heard of Corky Cartwright (which is probably my fault and not
his).  As I said once before, I think that if a person has never shown
any signs of contributing to or even following the Common Lisp
discussion, he has to have some other credentials that are pretty
substantial.  No amount of serving on program committees counts in my
book.  Has Cartwright actually done something?  What university does he
represent?

If we need to get to 11, maybe we go for both Rees and Bawden after all.
From what I know of these guys, they are not especially redundant and
are not working closely with one another.  MIT can't be a power block,
since MIT people normally hate each other much more than they hate the
rest of the world, and most of the world knows that.

-- Scott

∂30-Dec-85  0936	RPG  	Cartwright    
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA   

I know him pretty well. He got a PhD from Stanford under McCarthy.  He is
big on formal Lisp semantics. He is currently at Rice. He is very smart,
very well-spoken, understands the difference between formalisms and real
programming. He programmed up a theorem-prover for his thesis and has done
many other large projects. He has published a fair bit in the Lisp area.

I think he has the credentials to do a good job.

			-rpg-

∂30-Dec-85  1020	RPG  	McCarthy 
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA   
I have a private chat with him. He does not want to be on
the technical committee, but he would be willing to be on the
strategic committee provided certain conditions are true:
	1. It meets at least once
	2. It doesn't meet often
	3. Steele and I are on it
hm.
			-rpg-

∂30-Dec-85  1100	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Cartwright        
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Dec 85  10:59:45 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 30 Dec 85 13:59:44-EST
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1985  13:59 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12171291251.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Cartwright    
In-reply-to: Msg of 30 Dec 1985  12:36-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


Well, from Dick's description Cartwright sounds OK.  I am not a big fan
of formal semantics for anything, so I start out being skeptical of such
people, but if the person in question has a lot of big-project
experience, that is the proper antidote.  There remains the question of
whether the person knows enough about Common Lisp to contribute and
whether he agrees with the idea of starting from the Steele book rather
than starting from scratch.

There's a larger problem, however, and that is the person's visibility
to the Common Lisp community, defined as roughly the set of people who
have been following the Common Lisp mailing list.  We're need to be able
to say to people from various companies that the people on the technical
committee have a lot of experience both in language design and
implementation, and that we just didn't see anyone with those
credentials at Company X.  Having an unknown on the committee
(especially when we can't list a couple of things that the person has
done that clearly show why he is qualified) makes it a lot harder to go
with this argument.  Someone like Walter vanRoggen, say, might argue
that he is not in a class with Steele or Moon, but is at least as well
qualified to help decide the future of Common Lisp as Corky Cartwright,
whoever he is.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't take this guy, but we should think hard
about whether he really adds anything.  You guys have been counting Rees
as the formalist -- is Cartwright stronger here?

-- Scott

∂30-Dec-85  1107	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	McCarthy     
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Dec 85  11:07:35 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 30 Dec 85 14:07:32-EST
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1985  14:07 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12171292669.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: McCarthy 
In-reply-to: Msg of 30 Dec 1985  13:20-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>



Well, a strategy committee with

Mathis
Squires
Ohlander
McCarthy
Steele
Gabriel

sounds fine to me, especially if it is assumed that the first three do
all the dirty work and the last three keep them honest.  Such a
committee could be "sold" to the world, I think, without raising the
spectre of repesentation by various companies.  The credentials of each
are obvious: Mathis is the Convenor, Squires represents DARPA, Ohlander
is in charge of the service organization, McCarthy is God, Steele wrote
(and controls) the book, and Gabriel has organized all the meetings so
far.  Who could object?

-- Scott

∂30-Dec-85  1122	RPG  
 ∂30-Dec-85  0943	JMC  	re: Question about Common Lisp    
[In reply to message rcvd 30-Dec-85 09:30-PT.]

While I might have a technical idea from time to time about what should be
in Common Lisp, I never followed the detailed discussions in the mailing
list.  Therefore, I don't want to be on the Technical Committee.  I am
willing to be on the Strategic Committee provided it meets at least once
but not too often (or at least I don't always have to attend)
and provided you and Guy are also on it.

∂30-Dec-85  1127	RPG  	Cartwright etc
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA   

Scott's analysis is correct: we must keep the criteria such that
the committee is above reproach. As formalists, Rees is not in
the same league as Cartwright, but Rees has done several implementations
of Lisps. He even got Steele's S-1 compiler to really work, a feat only
equaled by myself.

With McCarthy out and Cartwright too, this leaves the committee
as:

	    Gabriel
	    Fahlman
	    Moon
	    Steele
	    Griss
	    Rees
	    Chailloux
	    Bobrow
	    Ida

which has 9 people, my favorite number.
			-rpg-

∂30-Dec-85  1139	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Cartwright etc    
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Dec 85  11:39:15 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 30 Dec 85 14:39:19-EST
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1985  14:39 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12171298453.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Cartwright etc
In-reply-to: Msg of 30 Dec 1985  14:27-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


OK, let's run this past the full ISO list, with Bawden as first
alternate.  One problem I see is that as far as I know, we cannot
communicate reliably with Ida, so he couldn't participate fully until we
fix this somehow.  We could go ahead and add him (after someone talks
with him and gets his permission), but the understanding would have to
be that we don't wait around for international airmail to do its thing
except on the most weighty of issues.

-- Scott

∂30-Dec-85  1259	DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	Committees   
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Dec 85  12:59:10 PST
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 383166; Mon 30-Dec-85 15:58:05-EST
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 85 15:59 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: Committees
To: quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <851230155910.6.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

This all sounds good to me, including both of the most recent lists
proposed for the two committees.

I agree with Steele that we should try not to make a "subset committee"
at this point.  Even if the members gravitate towards various areas, it
would be much better, and look much better also, to have one committee.

I agree with RPG's mail about the order of events, and it looks like
it's about time to expand to the gang of 7.  This quinquevirate list
will still be present if we want to talk among ourselves further.

I agree with Fahlman about formal semantics in the sense that real
theorists mean it.  On the other hand, the present CLtL could stand to
be a tiny bit more in the direction of formality than it is now.  I
don't mean we should start filling it with denotational semantics
(bleagh!), but notice how often someone sends mail about something, we
check the manual, and lo, it is ambiguous.  (This is not intended as
criticism of Steele!)  It's possible that having someone who is more
formally inclined would provide a nudge in the right direction.  Rees
and Bawden are both highly qualified, since in addition to their formal
backgrounds, they've been involved in real-world implementations
extensively, and know the score.  (Executive summary: I think the
current proposal looks good.)

Regarding communicating with Ida, I recently spent some time trying to
send mail to H. G. Okuno at NTT labs.  I was not successful.  Following
the paths he gave in his recent paper (the contest results), the mail
got as far as "kddlab", which returned it because it had never heard of
"nttmecl".  I'm not sure what "kddlab" is, but KDD is sort of the
Japanese equivalent of ITT; they handle international phone calls, for
example.  I'm not sure how to proceed to debug this further.

I agree with Steele strongly that when we present the committee to the
community, we re-emphasize that people will have access to information
even if they don't have a direct representative on the committee.  This
could be very important in getting everyone to accept the structure.

∂30-Dec-85  1300	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	Cartwright etc  
Received: from THINK.COM by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Dec 85  13:00:27 PST
Received: from yon by GODOT.THINK.COM via CHAOS; Mon, 30 Dec 85 16:00:13 est
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 85 16:00 EST
From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
Subject: Cartwright etc
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA, quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 30 Dec 85 14:27-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-Id: <851230160016.7.GLS@THINK-YON.ARPA>

    Date: 30 Dec 85  1127 PST
    From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>

    Scott's analysis is correct: we must keep the criteria such that
    the committee is above reproach.

There is always the reproach that the committee is tightly ingrown; this
is what prompted my suggestion of Cartwright.  He is outside the Common
Lisp clique but is aware of Lisp issues in general.  He got his degree
at Stanford, and he spent a semester at CMU a couple of years ago (while
I was at Tartan).  Scherlis knows him well.  Besides having papers in
POPL and TOPLAS, Cartwright had papers in the 1980 Lisp Conference and
the 1982 Lisp Conference, and served on the program committee for the
1984 Lisp conference.

I say all this not because I want to push very hard for him to be on the
committee, but merely to press home the point, for future reference,
that he is a good guy that has been involved with Lisp more than you
might think, just not in the hard-core implementation arena.

					As formalists, Rees is not in
    the same league as Cartwright, but Rees has done several implementations
    of Lisps. He even got Steele's S-1 compiler to really work, a feat only
    equaled by myself.

Hm.

    With McCarthy out and Cartwright too, this leaves the committee
    as:

		Gabriel
		Fahlman
		Moon
		Steele
		Griss
		Rees
		Chailloux
		Bobrow
		Ida

    which has 9 people, my favorite number.

That's a fine number, too, even though it isn't prime.

			    -rpg-

--Q

∂30-Dec-85  1702	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Cartwright etc    
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Dec 85  17:02:34 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 30 Dec 85 20:02:37-EST
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1985  20:02 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12171357311.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   Guy Steele <gls@AQUINAS.THINK.COM>
Cc:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Cartwright etc
In-reply-to: Msg of 30 Dec 1985  16:00-EST from Guy Steele <gls at THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>


    There is always the reproach that the committee is tightly ingrown; this
    is what prompted my suggestion of Cartwright.  He is outside the Common
    Lisp clique but is aware of Lisp issues in general.

The gang of five is certainly ingrown, but I don't think that any
committee containg such people as Bobrow, Griss, and Rees could be
considered ingrown.  To me the question is whether we can include
someone with good academic credentials but who has so far shown no
interest at all in Common Lisp or its immediate precursors when we are
excluding people who have done implementations and who have offered lots
of suggestions (even if they were dumb suggestions).

-- Scott

∂30-Dec-85  1715	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Steer is to Bull as Steering Committee is to ...
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Dec 85  17:15:28 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 30 Dec 85 20:15:32-EST
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1985  20:15 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12171359665.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Steer is to Bull as Steering Committee is to ...


Before I send anything off to CL-ISO, it might be good to hear from RPG
and GLS about their degree of interest in joining McCarthy on the
steering committee.  If you guys don't want to do this, then maybe we
just propose Squires/Mathis/Ohlander and let it go at that, but I kind
of like the idea of having McCarthy and some technical types on that
group, just to keep an eye on things.  Squires can sometimes be a loose
cannon on the deck.

-- Scott

∂30-Dec-85  2119	RPG  	Don't say ``Steer,'' say ``Bull.''
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA   
I am perfectly happy being on the steering committee with JMC and GLS,
assuming it is legal. Mathis, Ohlander, and Squires together, and alone,
on that committee would be no better than the Three Stooges. With
JMC, Steele, and I, it will be more like the Marx Brothers or the
Keystone Kops.
			-rpg-

∂31-Dec-85  1657	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	Steerage   
Received: from THINK.COM by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 31 Dec 85  16:57:37 PST
Received: from wenceslas by GODOT.THINK.COM via CHAOS; Tue, 31 Dec 85 17:35:56 est
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 85 17:36 EST
From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
Subject: Steerage
To: quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA
Message-Id: <851231173622.4.GLS@THINK-WENCESLAS.ARPA>

I'm willing to do it, I guess, and hope that it doesn't take much time
relative to the technical stuff.
--Guy

∂05-Jan-86  1506	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Membership in committees    
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 5 Jan 86  15:06:30 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Sun 5 Jan 86 18:06:43-EST
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1986  18:06 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12172909075.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc:   fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Membership in committees


Happy new year!

Well, the disruptions of the holiday season are over, and it is now time
for us to get to work on putting these committees together.  Those of us
in the original gang of five have been kicking around some ideas both by
mail and in person, and the proposed membership lists that I present
below seem pretty good to us.

At this point, we need to discuss this among the full gang of seven, and
especially to get any input that Bob Mathis may want to contribute about
the requirements for non-U.S.  membership in these committees.  The next
step is to contact all of the people we want to nominate -- I'll
indicate below which people have already expressed a willingness to
serve and which have not yet been contacted.  Then, once we have a set
of people willing to serve, we announce this to the rest of the Common
Lisp community and see if a firestorm ensues.  My guess is that if we do
our job well a few people around the edges will grumble a bit, or maybe
a lot, but that there will be no substantial opposition.

First, some proposals for the steering committee:

Bob Mathis
Steve Squires
Ron Ohlander
John McCarthy
Guy Steele
Dick Gabriel

It was earlier proposed that the steering committee be a very small one,
perhaps just with Mathis, Squires, and either Ohlander or Balzer.  (All
of us in the gang of five greatly prefer Ohlander, who will be the
person most directly responsible for the support effort at ISI.)  The
idea of going with a larger committee is that the first three people on
the list will deal with most of the hard-core political issues, while
the other three lend technical perspective as needed and provide a lot
of extra clout within some segments of the community.  I think that this
is a good setup.

McCarthy is the inventor of Lisp, so his presence blunts any possible
argument that Common Lisp is somehow illegitimate or that we have
dirfted too far from what Lisp was originally meant to be.  McCarthy
said that he had no interest in being on the technical committee, but
that he would join the steering committee if Steele and Gabriel were
also on it.  And after thinking about this, it seems like the right set
of people.  Steele wrote the book, and is therefore the name most
closely associated with Common Lisp by the user community; he will also
be the interface to Digital Press if one is needed.  Gabriel has
generally been the most politically active member of the gang of five:
he has set up the various meetings, he has been the principal interface
with DARPA people, he helped to bring various companies into the fold,
etc.

So I think that this is a group that nobody could object to, and that
has the kind of clout we might need if the foreigners (or certain U.S.
companies) try to put obstacles in our way.  There is no way to claim
that this group is representative of the whole community, but that isn't
important for this committee.

Now for the technical committee:

First some criteria.  

Not every company interested in Common Lisp can have someone on the
technical committee, but we did want to represent all of the major
segments of the community: specialized Lisp machines, general purpose
machines, universities, big companies, small companies, newcomers to the
fold, people who want to think about subsets, people from outside the
U.S., and so on.

We wanted to include only people who understand both language design and
implemenation issues as they relate to Lisp, who have demonstrated some
interest in and overall approval of Common Lisp, and who are reasonably
well known within the Common Lisp community.  It is NOT necessary that
these people were major contributors to the Common Lisp discussions --
there is not way to get broad representation if we make that
restriction.

We want people who can, to some extent at least, set aside their own
parochial interests for the good of the overall effort.  A lesser, but
still real consideration, is the ability of the person to work as part
of a team; we can't expect to make much progress if the committee is
full of people with some particular axe to grind, and who will hold a
grudge if they don't get their way on some issue.  In several cases, we
really wanted to include someone from particular companies, but couldn't
find anyone who has both the stature and the ability to compromise when
necessary.

Everyone on the committee must be able to communicate reliably with the
rest of us by netmail.  This may be a problem for the overseas guys: we
can apparently reach Chailloux in France OK, but so far have had little
luck in communicating with Japan.

We thought that it would be very poor politics to include two people
from Symbolics when we are telling several other companies that they
can't have their own delegate on the committee.  Consequently, Dan
Weinreb has agreed to step down, for now at least.  Of course, we hope
that Weinreb will continue to be active in all our discussions, which
will almost all take place in the open via the Common Lisp mailing list
or something similar.  In fact, an important part of selling this whole
thing to the companies not represented is to make it clear that the
discussions will be open, and only the final decisions will be in the
hands of the technical committtee alone.

So here is what we think might fly:

Scott Fahlman, CMU
Dick Gabriel, Lucid
Dave Moon, Symbolics
Guy Steele, Thinking Machines
Danny Bobrow, Xerox
Martin Griss, H-P
Jonathan Rees, MIT
Jerome Chailloux, INRIA
Masayuki Ida, Aoyama Gakuin University

The four members of the gang of five are obvious.

Bobrow is extremely prestigious as one of the original players in the
Interlisp and Tenex worlds, and he is now an important voice in the
object-oriented programming debates.  It is politicially quite useful to
have someone from Xerox aboard, and Bobrow is by far the best choice
there -- some of the others still seem to be bitter about Common Lisp's
success againts Interlisp.  Apparently he has indicated a willingness to
serve on this committee if asked, and the management people at Xerox
are eager to have him do this.

Griss is a less obvious choice, but he has a lot of experience in
implementing Lisp efficiently on conventional machines.  He has been a
proponent of using the smaller PSL over Common Lisp, but H-P has now
swung its considerable weight into the Common Lisp camp and Griss seems
quite willing to go along with this.  We felt that we needed one more
guy from a big company (H-P, IBM, DEC, TI ...) and after we rule out
people who are basically hostile to Common Lisp, Griss seems to be the
person with the best technical reputation.  Having someone aboard from
H-P specifically is also quite useful, as many of the other big
companies have close ties either to Lucid or to our group at CMU; H-P is
pretty independent, and is building a big Lisp-based research
organization at H-P Labs.  [We have not talked to Griss and he may not
be willing to put in the time for this; if he won't, we may have trouble
finding a good second choice to fill this niche, since there is nobody
else with comparable credentials at H-P.]

Jonathan Rees is most closely associated with T Lisp, a dialect of
Scheme, but he seems to understand that Common Lisp has different goals
from Scheme and that it is appropriate that it be larger and more
complex.  We all respect his taste in language design and his skills as
an implementor.  He is also something of a formalist, which will make
the committee look better in some peoples' eyes.  Rees has expressed
some interest in serving on this committee, but also some reservations
about the time it might take.  If he declines, a good alternative might
be Alan Bawden -- if they were not both at MIT, we would probably want
them both aboard.

It is not clear to us exactly at what point we should put international
members on the committee, but Chailloux is the most obvious non-U.S.
candidate.  He has strong implementation credentials as the developer of
Le Lisp, and has some strong ideas about creating a standard Common Lisp
subset -- a topic that some of us feel should be explored in any event.
He may be a bit hard to deal with when disagreements arise, but he will
certainly cause us less trouble on the committee than if he feels he was
unfairly excluded by a U.S. political steamroller.

The Japanese make a lot of noise about Prolog in public, but there is
great interest in Common Lisp in some of the big Japanese companies.
They will be important players in this game and should be represented,
though they might be content just to follow the U.S. lead.  Masayuki Ida
seems to be the obvious person: he translated the Common Lisp manual
into Japanese, and is the chairman of the JEIDA Common Lisp Committee.
(I'm not sure what role JEIDA plays, but it sounds like Ida is the
central coordination point for Common Lispers in Japan, if not their
actual leader.)  He, too, has some ideas about subsets.  I have a hunch
that Ida would be happy to serve on this committee, but we have not yet
been able to establish two-way mail contact with him.  If we cannot do
this, we may have to make him an honorary commitee member for awhile; we
cannot afford to hold up all decisions while we wait for snail mail to
do its thing.  The other Japanese we know are either too junior (more
important to them that to us) or are closely associated with one company
or another.

We have not identified anyone appropriate in Britain, West Germany, or
other such places.

My guess is that if all these people agree to serve and we announce this
committee to the rest of the community, it will go over pretty well.
LMI and the Franz Lisp people will complain a bit, as will Carl Hewitt
who keeps claiming that he has some legal right to be included in
everything that is going on.  We thought about what could be done to
placate these people, but there really is nobody reasonable for this
committee in any of their organizations.  By dropping Wienreb and
including some neutrals, we give them at least something to feel good
about.  I think that fair outside observers will feel that these
complaints are not well-founded, so they will eventually fade away.  I'm
sure that DEC, TI, IBM, and some of the other big companies will be a
bit concerned about not having their own poeple aboard, but if we stress
that the committee members are trying hard not to represent companies
and that all the discussions will be public, I think they'll all agree
that this is about the best we can do without growing the committee to
30 members.

Well, that's our first pass at this.  Comments are solicited.  Also,
please keep us informed about any progress in setting this up within
ISO.

-- Scott

∂06-Jan-86  1726	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Moving forward    
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Jan 86  17:26:20 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 6 Jan 86 20:26:36-EST
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1986  20:26 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12173196684.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Moving forward


I assume you all got copies of the letter I sent to CL-ISO.  Please feel
free to pop up with corrections or amplificiations if you think that I
misrepresented anything.

It looks like Squires and Mathis do not feature one-day turnaround on
mail messages.  Rather than wait around for word from them, it might be
best to sound out Griss and Rees (and Boborow?) about their interest in
being on the committee, without actually making any offers.  While the
time demands of being on this committee will be significant, we might
also mention that it can vary from person to person.  The minimum
requirement is that the member must follow and think about all the mail
that goes by, must get to any meetings (which I for one will fight hard
to minimize), and must vote when we have to take a vote.  Some of us
will have the heavier task of moderating the discussion, answering any
mail that nobody else answers, and keeping track of the results; I'd
like to spread that task around among more people, but we don't have to
dump it on the new guys right way.

Dick, do you want to do this?

We'd batter wait to hear from Mathis before contacting the foreigners.

-- Scott

∂07-Jan-86  0837	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	[SQUIRES: Membership in committees]   
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Jan 86  08:37:21 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Tue 7 Jan 86 11:21:09-EST
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1986  11:21 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12173359534.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: [SQUIRES: Membership in committees]


It looks like Squires just sent this to me, though it may also have
gone to the rest of you.  Anyway...

Date: Monday, 6 January 1986  22:24-EST
From: Stephen L. Squires <SQUIRES at USC-ISI.ARPA>
To:   Fahlman
cc:   Squires at USC-ISI.ARPA
Re:   Membership in committees

This is an excellent initial proposal and rationale.

I am in favor of having Ohlander on the steering committee because of
both his historical involvement at DARPA and the role he will have at ISI.
I also believe that your rationale for the expanded steering committee
is a good one, including the intersection with the technical committee
because it provides a very effective bridge between the two. The fact
that John McCarthy is willing to participate is a wonderful.

Very careful consideration should be given to the technical committee.
I like the idea of taking the first step at making it international
from the beginning.

At what point should we have a "formal" meeting of at least the US people.
It might be useful to get the small group together (perhaps at DARPA)
so that Director, IPTO could meet them and discuss the plans to
make the next part of standardization happen. This would also be the
time to work out the draft work plan that Mathis needs to put
together for the ISO activities.

∂07-Jan-86  0942	RPG  	Rees, Griss, and Bobrow 
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA   
I've checked with Bobrow orally, and he is willing. I will
re-probe Rees (I did so earlier). I will contact Griss.
			-rpg-

∂09-Jan-86  1401	JAR@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 	ISO Commitee Membership  
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Jan 86  13:20:15 PST
Date: Thu,  9 Jan 86 16:19:06 EST
From: Jonathan A Rees <JAR@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject:  ISO Commitee Membership 
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
In-reply-to: Msg of 07 Jan 86  0944 PST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].778591.860109.JAR>

    Date: 07 Jan 86  0944 PST
    From: Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>
    To:   jar at MIT-MC.ARPA
    Re:   ISO Commitee Membership 

    It is almost certain that you will be asked to serve on the Common Lisp
    ISO committee. If you would decline, we would want to think hard about a
    substitute for you, and perhaps the identity of the qualified candidates
    would force us to alter the rest of the committee to keep a reasonable
    balance. 

    Therefore, we would like to know that if the committee we name is
    asked, it will serve; and we would like to know this before we name the
    committee. As I mentioned, almost all the work will be by netmail,
    with only a couple of face-to-face meetings, perhaps 1 a year.

After a certain amount of internal agonizing, I have determined that the
answer is that if asked to serve, I would not decline.

Jonathan

∂09-Jan-86  1404	RPG  	Rees
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA   
Jonathon says he will serve if asked. The only unknown American is
Griss. His lack of response could mean he's away often enough now that
he cannot adequately serve. We shall see.
			-rpg-

∂09-Jan-86  1512	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Rees    
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Jan 86  15:12:02 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Thu 9 Jan 86 18:12:15-EST
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1986  18:12 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12173958659.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Cc:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Rees
In-reply-to: Msg of 9 Jan 1986  17:04-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


Thanks for following up on Rees.  I wouldn't let Griss's
non-responsiveness in any particular week bother me too much, but if
he's generally non-responsive to mail that is more serious.

Has anyone heard anything from Mathis?  I'm thinking of trying the
telephone (yecch!) if we don't hear from him soon.  Maybe the French
sent a team of frogmen to blow him up.

-- Scott

∂15-Jan-86  1755	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Bob Mathis   
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 15 Jan 86  17:55:01 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Wed 15 Jan 86 20:55:11-EST
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1986  20:55 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12175561184.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Bob Mathis


I managed to catch Bob Mathis by phone today.  He still exists.  He had
some problems in sending outgoing messages to the arpanet, and also felt
that he wanted to discuss some stuff with Squires before getting back to
us on committees and schedules and things.  He finally caught Squires,
and will be sending us a bunch of ideas as soon as he gets them written
up.  He basically likes the committee we proposed.

I emphasized to him the importance of staying in closer contact with us
via netmail.

Has anyone heard from Griss yet?  Should I try to phone him?

-- Scott

∂16-Jan-86  1132	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	Standard for Common LISP    
Received: from USC-ISIF.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 16 Jan 86  11:30:58 PST
Date: 16 Jan 1986 11:31-PST
Sender: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Subject: Standard for Common LISP
From: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
To: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF.ARPA]16-Jan-86 11:31:11.MATHIS>

Yes there still is a Bob Mathis on the net.

I have met with Cathy Kachurik of X3 about setting up an American
National committee for Common LISP under them.  That seems to  be
the  best way to go.  It appears that it will eventually be known
as X3J13, but we can make that lucky.

Steve Squires, Scott Fahlman, and I  talked  yesterday  and  feel
that  a  January  meeting is not necessary.  I have some notes on
planning that I will send to each of you.  A February meeting  is
possible if you think we need one.

Other  messages  will  follow in the next couple of days.  If you
ever want to call me: (703)425-5923.

Bob Mathis

∂20-Jan-86  1307	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	Schedule for approval of standards committee    
Received: from USC-ISIF.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Jan 86  13:06:55 PST
Date: 20 Jan 1986 13:07-PST
Sender: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Subject: Schedule for approval of standards committee
From: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
To: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: Mathis@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF.ARPA]20-Jan-86 13:07:05.MATHIS>







DRAFT Schedule for the formation and approval of a new X3
Technical Committee for the standardization of Common LISP
(tentatively X3J13) (as of January 20, 1986):

     1   February      Documents to SPARC
     2   March 18      SPARC Meeting
     3   March 27      X3 Ballot out for "30 days"
     4   May 2         X3 Ballot closes
     5   May 27        Status Resolved
     6   May 28        Press Release & Meeting Announcement
     7   September     First Meeting
     8   November      Second Meeting
     9   November      X3 Ballot on Officers
     10  December 30   Organization Complete


1   February      Documents to SPARC

SPARC is the Standards Planning and Requirements Committee of X3.
It is the first committee which must approve the formation of any
new technical committees. It is also the committee which annually
reviews the work. Documents have to be sent out to SPARC members
at least two weeks before the meeting.  The January 21, 1986
meeting was too soon.

Once we have sent in the proposal, I think we should go "public"
with our intention to form this X3 Technical Committee. As long
as we are clear about its status, we should have no problems.
Mathis can serve as a focal point for information and
contributions. This will also be a place for everyone who might
be interested, but was not included on the technical or steering
committees.


2   March 18      SPARC Meeting

This meeting will be in Washington and Mathis can meet with them
sometime during their four day meeting. If two-thirds of the
committee approve, then the recommendation is forwarded to X3 for
a letter ballot.


3   March 27      X3 Ballot out for "30 days"

X3 letter ballots are normally mailed on Thursdays with the 30
day count starting the next Wednesday; this makes about a five
week period. Two-thirds of the members must approve.


4   May 2         X3 Ballot closes

If there are any negative votes, everyone is given 10 days to
reconsider their vote. The technical committee can still be
approved with negative votes, but the issues raised will have to
be addressed by the committee.


5   May 27        Status Resolved

If there were any negative votes, the supplemental response time
will have closed by now.


6   May 28        Press Release & Meeting Announcement

X3 Secretariat issues press release announcing the approval of
the technical committee, information about membership, and notice
of the first meeting (which must be at least six weeks away).


7   September     First Meeting

An early september date is best for the first official meeting of
the new X3-J? committee on Common LISP. This will allow plenty of
time for publicity, membership solicitation, and planning. It
also comes after the LISP meeting in Boston, August 4-6.

The first meeting will be held at CBEMA, 311 First St, NW,
Washington, DC 20001. Mathis will serve as convenor and acting
chairman. The agenda will include a discussion of the standards
process with a focus on the role and responsibilities of this
technical committee. By this time there should also be a set of
initial working documents, a detailed plan of work, and a meeting
schedule; work should begin on all these things now, but this is
the committee's time to accept and make it their own.


8   November      Second Meeting

At or after the second meeting officers can be nominated for
ballot by X3. There should be a Chairman, Vice Chairman,
Secretary, and International Representative (IR). Normally the
Chairman and Vice Chairman are chosen to have complementary roles
in leading the technical work and administering the standards
effort. One of the first three officers must be responsible for
maintaining the document register, membership list, and
communication with X3. One of the other officers can serve as IR
initially. For most technical committees, it has been difficult
to find people willing to take on these responsibilities.
Candidates must have a statement of management support and a
resume of expertise. They are elected for a three year term.
These people can also have leadership roles in the ISO working
group.


9   November      X3 Ballot on Officers

X3 has a "30 day" (five week) ballot on the officer candidates.


10  December 30   Organization Complete





∂20-Jan-86  1331	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	Standardization of Common LISP   
Received: from USC-ISIF.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Jan 86  13:31:27 PST
Date: 20 Jan 1986 13:31-PST
Sender: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Subject: Standardization of Common LISP
From: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
To: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: Mathis@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF.ARPA]20-Jan-86 13:31:36.MATHIS>


To all who receive this message (or should have), I would like to
have addresses for physical mail and phone numbers.  When  I  put
together  formal  packages,  I  would like to be able to send you
copies.

In my other message I sent a draft schedule for the  approval  of
an  X3  technical  committee  for Common LISP standardization.  I
have tried to explain the steps there.  This will be  the  public
committee  in the United States.  The technical committee we have
discussed  will  report  to  them  for  formal  approval  in  the
standards   committee  sense.   In  forming  a  standard,  it  is
important that everyone has had a chance to participate and  have
their  concerns  addressed.   This  public  committee is for that
purpose.  The intent is to achieve  consensus  on  a  technically
sound  and  acceptable standard; not to decide things by majority
vote.

The ISO proposal can go forward at about the same time.

X3 committees are open to international membership.  If  we  want
the   technical  committee  to  really  represent  the  technical
community, there should be some  non-US  members  on  it.   Scott
Fahlman  and  I  talked  on the phone and are in agreement on the
people  suggested  in  his  5  Jan  message  on  "Membership   in
Committees".   Ron  Ohlander  is  the  one  who  should be on the
steering committee.  Bob Balzer and Ron Ohlander  both  expressed
an  interest  to  me  and I was the source of the confusion about
their roles.  If we are  all  agreed,  who  should  invite  these
people to join?

I  am  drafting  the  proposal  to SPARC.  You should see it in a
couple of days.

Bob Mathis

∂20-Jan-86  1408	RPG  	Asking non-US citizens to join    
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
I will ask Jerome Chailloux.
			-rpg-

∂20-Jan-86  1508	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Asking non-US citizens to join        
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Jan 86  15:08:27 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 20 Jan 86 18:08:36-EST
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1986  18:08 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12176841566.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Cc:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Asking non-US citizens to join    
In-reply-to: Msg of 20 Jan 1986  17:08-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


Sounds like a good plan.  You seem to know Chailloux better
than the rest of us and get along with him.

Still no response from Griss?

-- Scott

∂20-Jan-86  1518	RPG  	Griss    
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
I re-probed Griss today, and here is his response:

Sorry, I got sidetracked with priority things. My time is not as much
my own as it used to be in the Unviersity (a fact I noticed whn I
tried to be a reviewer for last Lisp conf..). What sort of time
commitment are we talking about?.

∂20-Jan-86  1746	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Griss        
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Jan 86  17:46:08 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 20 Jan 86 20:46:20-EST
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1986  20:46 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12176870288.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Cc:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Griss    
In-reply-to: Msg of 20 Jan 1986  18:18-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


As a possible answer to Griss, let me suggest the following: I think
that the minimum time commitment for being on the technical committee is
the time it takes to read all of the mail that goes by on the list, and
to think about what is being said at least enough to know whether you
disagree with the rest of us.  (And, of course, if you do disagree or
want to add something, the time it takes to compose a message.)  Plus
the time it takes to get to the face-to-face meetings, which I fervently
hope will be as few and as short as possible -- no more than two a year,
and I'd like to see us go for one.  Griss can see how much mail goes by
and that it goes in waves, so he can estimate for himself how much time
it would take.  My guess would be maybe two or three hours a week -- I
spend about twice that, I think.

Obviously, this thing would not fly if all of us put in just that
minimum amount (someone has to venture opinions for the others to
agree or disagree with, collect the results, etc.), but I would favor
having Griss aboard if he could find time for just the minimum.

-- Scott

∂22-Jan-86  1032	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	SPARC proposal    
Received: from USC-ISIF.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Jan 86  10:32:20 PST
Date: 22 Jan 1986 10:32-PST
Sender: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Subject: SPARC proposal
From: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
To: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF.ARPA]22-Jan-86 10:32:24.MATHIS>

Gentlemen, Thanks for your replies to my previous message.

Here is the beginning of filling out the proposal to SPARC.  What
I need you to think about is the scope of the  standard  and  the
plan  of  technical  work (what to expect when).  For most of you
skipping the rest of this message would make sense.

-- Bob Mathis






1  Identification of Proposed Project

1.1  Title

Common LISP


1.2  Proposer(s)

Robert F. Mathis, 9712 Ceralene Drive, Fairfax, VA 22032,
(703)425-5923, on behalf of the Common LISP Community.

The Common LISP Community is an informal group of people who are
implmenting and using Common LISP and who correspond with each
other over the ARPA Net.  They occasionally meet as they did in
Boston, December 9-11, 1985.  At that meeting they decided that a
national and international standards effort was appropriate and
endorsed Robert Mathis to be the leader and organizer of that
effort.


1.3  Date Submitted

February 1, 1986


2  Justification of Proposed Standard

2.1  Needs

LISP is the second oldest programming language still in currentuse. During its life numerous extensions and incompatable
versions have been tried. In 1982, an effort was begun under the
auspecies of the Spice Project at Carnegie-Mellon University and
sponsored by DARPA to define a new commonly acceptable version of
LISP. The resulting book Common LISP: The Language by Guy Steele,
                         ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←               
Jr. has received world wide acceptance. MACLISP, ZETALISP,
SCHEME, INTERLISP, SPICE LISP, S-1 LISP, NIL (New Implementation
LISP), "Standard" LISP, and Portable "Standard" LISP have all
been considered and features incorporated as appropriate.


2.2  Recommended Scope of Standard


2.3  Existing Practice in Area of Proposed Standard

Most of the LISP oriented suppliers (both hardware and software)
are moving toward Common LISP, either as their principle version
of LISP or as an option. DARPA and other agencies in the DoD are
insisting on Common LISP as the version of LISP to be used on
their projects.


2.4  Expected Stability of Proposed Standard with Respect to Current

Quoting from the Introduction" to Common LISP: The Language, "It
                                  ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←     
is intended that Common LISP will change only slowly and with due
deliberation. The various dialects that are supersets of Common
LISP may serve as laboratories within which to test language
extensions, but such extensions will be added to Common LISP only
after careful examination and experimentation." (p. 3)


3  Description of Proposed Project

3.1  Definitions of Concepts and Special Terms (if any)


3.2  Expected Relationship with Approved X3 Reference Models


3.3  Recommended Program of Work

3.3.1  Base Documents


3.3.2  Time/Milestone Schedule


3.3.3  Potential Participants

Some leaders in the Common LISP Community have already been
identified who are willing to serve: John McCarthy, Stanford
(inventor of Lisp); Guy Steele, Thinking Machines (author of
Common LISP: The Language); Scott Fahlman, CMU; Dick Gabriel,
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←                                    
Lucid; Dave Moon, Symbolics; Steve Squires, DARPA; Ron Ohlander,
USC-ISI; and Bob Mathis, Private Consultant. Other people we also
expect to be involved include: Danny Bobrow, Xerox; Martin Griss,
H-P; Jonathan Rees, MIT; Jerome Chailloux, INRIA; and Masayuki
Ida, Aoyama Gakuin University. We have not identified anyone
appropriate in Britain, West Germany, or other countries.


3.4  Resources -- Individuals and Organizations Competent in Subject


3.5  Recommended X3 Development Technical Committee (Existing or New)


3.6  Anticipated Frequency and Duration of Meetings


3.7  Target Date for dpANS to X3 (Milestone 10)


3.8  Estimated Useful Life of Standard


4  Implementation Impacts

4.1  Impact on Existing User Practices and Investments


4.2  Impact on Supplier Products and Support


4.3  Techniques and Costs for Compliance Verification


4.4  Legal Considerations


5  Closely Related Standards Activities

5.1  Existing Standards


5.2  X3 Standards Development Projects


5.3  X3/SPARC Study Groups


5.4  Other Related Domestic Standards Efforts


5.5  ISO Standards Development Projects


5.6  Other Related International Standards Development Projects














5.7  Recommendations for Close Liaison







∂22-Jan-86  1123	RPG  	Hold it right there!    
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA   

I don't like to be picky, but this paragraph is full of lies:

``LISP is the second oldest programming language still in current use.
During its life numerous extensions and incompatable versions have been
tried. In 1982, an effort was begun under the auspices of the Spice
Project at Carnegie-Mellon University and sponsored by DARPA to define a
new commonly acceptable version of LISP. The resulting book Common LISP:
The Language by Guy Steele ...''

During 1982, Steele's efforts on the Common Lisp design document were
funded by LLNL. At the moment, LLNL is in the mood to not be upset at the
outcome, but a statement like this might convince them otherwise.

Also, I would say that many parts of the Common Lisp community would feel
slighted and cheated by finding out that Common Lisp was designed by the
Spice Project at CMU under DARPA funding, when one could just as easily say
that it was started at Stanford in the Formal Reasoning Group and sponsored
by DARPA, or that it was started at LLNL in the S-1 Group and sponsored
by the Navy.

One can quibble that the wording of the statement, under a second and
closer inspection, does not say what I claim it does, but it certainly
strikes people that way on first reading. I believe that a much more
politic statement could be made, and said statement can also give enough
credit to DARPA to justify it happy attitude about Common Lisp.

In the spirit of the Common Lisp effort, I propose a re-wording:

LISP is the second oldest programming language still in current use.
During its life numerous extensions and incompatable versions have been
tried. In 1981 an effort was begun by a number of researchers at several
organizations to define a commonly acceptable version of LISP. The
language specification was written by members of this informal group, but
the coordination of the effort and the bulk of the writing was done under the
auspices of the Spice Project at Carnegie-Mellon University and sponsored
by DARPA.  The resulting book Common LISP: The Language by Guy Steele ...

			-rpg-

∂22-Jan-86  1207	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Hold it right there!        
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Jan 86  11:51:18 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Wed 22 Jan 86 14:51:21-EST
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1986  14:51 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12177329947.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Cc:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Hold it right there!    
In-reply-to: Msg of 22 Jan 1986  14:23-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


I agree that the paragraph about where Common Lisp came from needs to be
fixed.  While CMU played an important role, so did lots of others, and I
see no particular reason to single out CMU's contribution in this
document.  I guess Dick's objection didn't go to the full ISO list.  I
was about to propose a similar re-wording to Mathis, and will go ahead
and do this incorporating some of Dick's language.

-- Scott

∂22-Jan-86  1411	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	SPARC proposal    
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Jan 86  14:11:23 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Wed 22 Jan 86 17:11:42-EST
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1986  17:11 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12177355505.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Cc:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: SPARC proposal


Bob,

One thing I meant to say in reply to your notes earlier in the week was
that we really need to figure out how the steering and technical
committees relate to the official X3 committee.

The view that I had after the Boston meeting was that we would put
together the steering and technical committees as quickly as possible,
and then propose to ISO/ANSI that they somehow be recognized as
official.  In that case, we could start the technical work right away.

As I understand it now, the X3 committee will not be formed until this
summer or early fall, and they will be a self-appointed group -- anyone
can join who pays the $150 dues and who participates.  And it is
ultimately up to the X3 committee to elect the technical commitee.  We
might be able to get them to rubber stamp our selections, but if the
actual outcome of this is uncertain until September, I see a great
potential for paralysis.

Maybe the right move is just to appoint ourselves as a technical
committee, proceed as if we really believe that we are legitimiate,
and hope that nothing we do gets repudiated in the end.  That could work
if we can all carry off the bluff with a straight face.

Regarding your proposal to SPARC, I think that there are some
inaccuracies, especially in the area of history.  Let me propose a
revised version (some of the revisions suggested by Dick Gabriel).
The revised paragraphs are flush-left, while the old ones are indented. 

    1  Identification of Proposed Project

    1.1  Title

    Common LISP


    1.2  Proposer(s)

    Robert F. Mathis, 9712 Ceralene Drive, Fairfax, VA 22032,
    (703)425-5923, on behalf of the Common LISP Community.

The Common Lisp Community is an informal collection of people from
industry, academia, and government who have particpated in the initial
design and implementation of Common Lisp.  This group has been in
existence for five years, communicating primarily by ARPAnet.
Occasionally the community meets, as they did in Boston, December 9-11,
1985.  At that meeting they decided that a national and international
standards effort for Common Lisp was appropriate and endorsed Robert
Mathis as the coordinator and organizer of that effort.

    1.3  Date Submitted

    February 1, 1986


    2  Justification of Proposed Standard

    2.1  Needs

Lisp is the second oldest programming language still in current use
(after Fortran).  Lisp has traditionally been the language used for most
Artificial Intelligence programming, and is now becoming popular for
non-AI tasks as well.  Throughout its early history, Lisp was the
subject of much experimentation; this has greatly improved the Lisp
language, but has also led to a proliferation of incompatible dialects.
This lack of standardization has impeded the acceptance of Lisp in
industry.

In 1981, with the encouragement of DARPA, an effort was begun by a
number of researchers at several organizations to define a commonly
acceptable version of LISP.  The language specification was written by
members of this informal group, after extensive discussions on the
ARPAnet.  The resulting book Common LISP: The Language by Guy Steele Jr.
Jr. has received world wide acceptance. MACLISP, ZETALISP, SCHEME,
INTERLISP, SPICE LISP, S-1 LISP, NIL (New Implementation LISP),
"Standard" LISP, and Portable "Standard" LISP have all been considered
in the design of Common Lisp, and the most useful features of each were
incorporated.  Common Lisp, as described in the Steele book, has now
become a de facto standard within the U. S., and there is great interest
in this language in Europe and Japan.  Therefore, we feel that the time
has come to develop an official international standard for this
language.

    2.2  Recommended Scope of Standard


    2.3  Existing Practice in Area of Proposed Standard

Of the U. S. hardware manufacturers who support any kind of Lisp on
their machines, the overwhelming majority have now announced plans to
the Common Lisp language as described in the Steele book, either as
their only supported Lisp product or alongside some older dialect.
DARPA and other agencies in the DoD are insisting on Common LISP as the
version of LISP to be used on their projects.  A Common Lisp Committee
has been formed in Japan to promote the language there, and there is
growing interest in the language in Europe.


    2.4  Expected Stability of Proposed Standard with Respect to Current

    Quoting from the Introduction" to Common LISP: The Language, "It
                                      ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←     
    is intended that Common LISP will change only slowly and with due
    deliberation.
    LISP may serve as laboratories within which to test language
    extensions, but such extensions will be added to Common LISP only
    after careful examination and experimentation." (p. 3)

The Common Lisp language is still relatively new, and we would
anticipate that a new revision of the standard would appear
approximately every two years .

    3  Description of Proposed Project

    3.1  Definitions of Concepts and Special Terms (if any)


    3.2  Expected Relationship with Approved X3 Reference Models


    3.3  Recommended Program of Work

    3.3.1  Base Documents


    3.3.2  Time/Milestone Schedule


    3.3.3  Potential Participants

    Some leaders in the Common LISP Community have already been
    identified who are willing to serve: John McCarthy, Stanford
    (inventor of Lisp); Guy Steele, Thinking Machines (author of
    Common LISP: The Language); Scott Fahlman, CMU; Dick Gabriel,
    ←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←                                    
    Lucid; Dave Moon, Symbolics; Steve Squires, DARPA; Ron Ohlander,
    USC-ISI; and Bob Mathis, Private Consultant. Other people we also
    expect to be involved include: Danny Bobrow, Xerox; Martin Griss,
    H-P; Jonathan Rees, MIT; Jerome Chailloux, INRIA; and Masayuki
    Ida, Aoyama Gakuin University. We have not identified anyone
    appropriate in Britain, West Germany, or other countries.

<< Maybe this can wait until we have contacted the others.  Then it's
just one big list.  I would leave out the part about not being able to
find anyone in Britain, etc., or if we must say something, say that we
have not YET found appropriate participants there.  No sense making more
enemies. >>

    3.4  Resources -- Individuals and Organizations Competent in Subject


    3.5  Recommended X3 Development Technical Committee (Existing or New)


    3.6  Anticipated Frequency and Duration of Meetings


    3.7  Target Date for dpANS to X3 (Milestone 10)


    3.8  Estimated Useful Life of Standard


    4  Implementation Impacts

    4.1  Impact on Existing User Practices and Investments


    4.2  Impact on Supplier Products and Support


    4.3  Techniques and Costs for Compliance Verification


    4.4  Legal Considerations


    5  Closely Related Standards Activities

    5.1  Existing Standards


    5.2  X3 Standards Development Projects


    5.3  X3/SPARC Study Groups


    5.4  Other Related Domestic Standards Efforts


    5.5  ISO Standards Development Projects


    5.6  Other Related International Standards Development Projects


    5.7  Recommendations for Close Liaison

∂22-Jan-86  1441	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	SPARC's flying  
Received: from GODOT.THINK.COM by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Jan 86  14:40:51 PST
Received: from eligius by GODOT.THINK.COM via CHAOS; Wed, 22 Jan 86 17:40:44 est
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 86 17:41 EST
From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
Subject: SPARC's flying
To: quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA
Message-Id: <860122174143.2.GLS@THINK-ELIGIUS.ARPA>

I agree with the changes that Scott has proposed to Mathis.
Thank you.  One minor point: I think that, realistically, the
revision cycle time is more likely to be three years than two.

I want to point out that the wording in the introduction to the
Common Lisp book was very carefully constructed: it says that
*part* of the work on the book was done *in conjunction with*
the Spice project, and that the Spice project happens to be
sponsored by DARPA.  What is not stated explicitly is that at
no time during the initial development of Common Lisp was there
any explicit contract from DARPA to develop the definition of
Common Lisp.  There was of course a great deal of informal
and indirect encouragement, which was very important; but I would
say it is not correct to say that DARPA "sponsored" Common Lisp.
It's not necessarily that DARPA would not have done so, but merely
that we didn't ask for money directly.

--Guy

∂22-Jan-86  1448	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	Britain and Italy    
Received: from GODOT.THINK.COM by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Jan 86  14:48:13 PST
Received: from eligius by GODOT.THINK.COM via CHAOS; Wed, 22 Jan 86 17:48:29 est
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 86 17:49 EST
From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
Subject: Britain and Italy
To: quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA
Message-Id: <860122174935.3.GLS@THINK-ELIGIUS.ARPA>

I have been informed third-hand that Julian Padget (sp?)
and Guiseppe Attardi might be interested in becoming involved
with an international Common Lisp effort.

∂24-Jan-86  1941	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	Re: SPARC proposal
Received: from USC-ISIF.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 24 Jan 86  19:41:32 PST
Date: 24 Jan 1986 18:45-PST
Sender: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Subject: Re: SPARC proposal
From: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
To: Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Cc: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA, cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF.ARPA]24-Jan-86 18:45:46.MATHIS>
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12177355505.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>

Scott,

Thanks for the comments.

-- Bob

∂04-Feb-86  1103	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Symbols as functions   
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Feb 86  10:59:32 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Tue 4 Feb 86 13:59:04-EST
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1986  13:58 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12180728272.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc:   wholey@C.CS.CMU.EDU, ram@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Symbols as functions


Technical, not administrative:

We've had a bit of a debate here about whether it is legal, according
the the current manual, to use a symbol as the Symbol-Function of
another symbol.  (It is clear that you can pass a symbol as the function
to Apply and that (functionp <some symbol>) is true.)  In other words,
if I do

(defun foo () 'barph)
(setf (symbol-function 'foo1) 'foo)
(setf (symbol-function 'foo2) 'foo1)
(foo2)

must the system return BARPH, or is it allowed to barf?  The issue comes
up because CommonLoops happens to do something like this and Spice Lisp
doesn't support it at present.

Long ago this was explicitly forbidden in Spice Lisp because it slowed
things down and an infinitely loop of symbols calling each other was
very hard to check for.  Later Guy realized that the old trick of using
two pointers, one moving at half speed, would detect such loops, and the
inefficiency would only show up if you actually used such chains. SO he
wanted to lift this restriction; I didn't, because I thought it was a
worthless crock, and this never got changed in Spice Lisp (and
presumably many of its progeny).  The language in the book about symbols
being legitimate functions comes from a completely different debate, the
one about whether it is OK to say (apply 'foo ...) instead of (apply
#'foo ...).

Anyway, I thought I'd see if the rest of you have some clear impression
of what is currently required and/or what should be, before throwing
this open to comment from the entire mailing list.

-- Scott

∂04-Feb-86  1257	Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	Symbols as functions  
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Feb 86  12:51:53 PST
Received: from EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 409633; Tue 4-Feb-86 15:32:46-EST
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 86 15:31 EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Subject: Symbols as functions
To: Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
cc: quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA, wholey@C.CS.CMU.EDU, ram@C.CS.CMU.EDU
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12180728272.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Message-ID: <860204153154.9.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

    Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1986  13:58 EST
    From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>

    We've had a bit of a debate here about whether it is legal, according
    the the current manual, to use a symbol as the Symbol-Function of
    another symbol.  (It is clear that you can pass a symbol as the function
    to Apply and that (functionp <some symbol>) is true.)  In other words,
    if I do

    (defun foo () 'barph)
    (setf (symbol-function 'foo1) 'foo)
    (setf (symbol-function 'foo2) 'foo1)
    (foo2)

    must the system return BARPH, or is it allowed to barf?  The issue comes
    up because CommonLoops happens to do something like this and Spice Lisp
    doesn't support it at present.

    Long ago this was explicitly forbidden in Spice Lisp because it slowed
    things down and an infinitely loop of symbols calling each other was
    very hard to check for.  

I see no reason to check explicitly for it, as long as it is interruptible.  I
don't see it as different from any other infinite loop that a user might insert
into a program, accidentally or intentioanlly.  Perhaps there are
implementation reasons on the PERQ that make it difficult to make it
interruptible.

On the other hand, clearly anything that signals an error from your microcode
can be implemented, inefficiently, in the error-trap handler.  So you could
support this without having to support it in microcode.

			     Later Guy realized that the old trick of using
    two pointers, one moving at half speed, would detect such loops, and the
    inefficiency would only show up if you actually used such chains. SO he
    wanted to lift this restriction; I didn't, because I thought it was a
    worthless crock, and this never got changed in Spice Lisp (and
    presumably many of its progeny).  The language in the book about symbols
    being legitimate functions comes from a completely different debate, the
    one about whether it is OK to say (apply 'foo ...) instead of (apply
    #'foo ...).

    Anyway, I thought I'd see if the rest of you have some clear impression
    of what is currently required and/or what should be, before throwing
    this open to comment from the entire mailing list.

We have always allowed this in our system, and users sometimes make good use
of it to make two functions synonyms while still having redefinitions of one
propagate to the other.  (There are other ways to do that, but using a symbol
as a function definition is the only one that is both potentially efficient
and potentially legal Common Lisp.)

I can't find any evidence in the manual supporting or opposing the proposition
that (setf (symbol-function <symbol1>) <symbol2>) is legal.  The manual is
extremely coy about admitting what exactly a "function" is, I think to avoid
restricting implementations' choices of how to represent lexical closures,
compiled functions, and so forth.

My conclusion is that if we had the mechanism in place to clean up the manual
and modify the language, I would propose that the construct CommonLoops is using
be made explicitly legal.  In the meantime, the manual says nothing and it's
up to the discretion of the implementor.

∂05-Feb-86  0818	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	Re: SPARC proposal
Received: from USC-ISIF.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 5 Feb 86  08:18:40 PST
Date: 5 Feb 1986 08:15-PST
Sender: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Subject: Re: SPARC proposal
From: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
To: Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Cc: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA, cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF.ARPA] 5-Feb-86 08:15:59.MATHIS>
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12177355505.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>

Scott,

I  have  incorporated  most  of  your  suggestions into a revised
proposal to SPARC.

You raised another point also -- when can this ad hoc "gang of  5
+/-"  start  acting.   I  think the answer is as soon as it does.
The eventual X3 Technical  Committee  will  start  with  whatever
technical  documents  exist at that time, so we should be working
on whatever improvements are appropriate.  As long as we  do  not
pretend  to  be  speaking  for  that  official (not yet existing)
committee we should be all right.  The real  problem  is  getting
ourselves organized.  ISI is proposing to do some kind of support
work.  I am going out there at the end of February.  If we are to
make  any  decisions,  we  need to have a list of current issues,
discussion points raised, and any resolution.  I don't  know  how
each  of you keep track of the items (sometimes it seems like you
just quit talking about an issue and I'm not always sure that  it
has been resolved).  As soon as we have a way of maintaining that
issues list and referencing discussions to it, then  I  think  we
could  start  acting and making decisions public and people would
have a reasonable expectation that the decision would hold.

Bob

∂05-Feb-86  1536	Fitch%cs.ucl.ac.uk@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK 	LISP standardisation  
Received: from CS.UCL.AC.UK by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 5 Feb 86  15:34:36 PST
Date:     Wed, 5 Feb 86 22:27:57 GMT
From:     Fitch%cs.ucl.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
To:       common-lisp@su-ai.arpa
cc:       ma←jap%ux63.bath.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject:  LISP standardisation

     A statement about the European standardisation effort on LISP.

A committee, called the EuLISP committee, has met regularly since
September of last year to prepare a definition of LISP for presentation
to the respective national standards organisations of the members and
thence to ISO.  Regular participants include Chailloux, Christaller,
Krumnack, Fitch, Padget, Pope, Queinnec and Steels.  EuLISP is simply the
name of the committee; the name of the defined language will, we hope, be
ISO LISP.  For convenience that name is used for the definition in the
rest of this message.

ISO LISP is a post Common LISP (CL) LISP, which is to say that it draws
on the experience of the CL definition and development effort, as well as
the experience of other LISP activities.

ISO LISP has a compact, identifiable kernel, which, in itself, will
correspond to the level 0 definition.  The full ISO LISP will be defined
at several levels in two dimensions.  Along one axis is the complexity of
the language, and along the other are the multiple levels of
programming environment support.

It is our intention to define the kernel such that Level (0,0) be very
simple and portable even to current micro-computers while Level (3,3) (or
more likely (3,2) or (3,1)) with less environment will have at least the
breadth and depth of CL as discussed in Steele et al.  (Digital Press),
but this should by no means be read as a committment to correspond
exactly or completely (by extension or omission) with that document.  CL
is certainly the major input to the definition, but it is not the only
one.  Even now, CL, as laid down by Steele et al., is under review and
this fact alone makes such a committment unwise.

The EuLISP committee includes representatives of the implementors of two
LISP dialects widely used outside the United States, namely Le←LISP and
Cambridge LISP, in addition to large LISP users.  The effect of this is
that the committee can take advantage of the lessons learnt over the
lives of these systems, whilst at the same time using them as an
environment for prototyping the new definition.  Let it be clearly stated
that this is not an attempt to make either Cambridge LISP or Le←LISP or
some hybrid into a standard, but to evolve a new standard.

A fundamental part of the definition process includes a rationale for ISO
LISP and, incrementally, there will be a rationale for each major design
decision, such as why something is included, excluded or at variance in
some other way with existing dialects.

The EuLISP committee meets on the first Monday of each month and the
sessions are open.  The next three meetings are scheduled as follows:

	March 3 1986 - IRCAM (near Pompidou Centre), Paris.
	April 7 1986 - INRIA, Sophia Antipolis (near Nice).
	May 5 1986 - IRCAM, Paris.

Subsequent meetings will be arranged on a three month forward plan.

We are determined that the definition will be complete in twelve months
and in accordance with that aim, the draft level 0 definition will be
produced by 1 June 1986.  It is also expected that prototype
implementations will conform to that definition very close to that date.

The monthly meetings are first and foremost for coordination, review and
setting the next group of objectives.  The remaining time is allotted
to technical issues, but for the most part, such details are discussed on
electronic mail, to which end there is a mailing list:

	{seismo,decvax}!mcvax!inria!eulisp at INRIA (Paris).

Interested parties should mail Chailloux at that address (...!inria!chailloux)
to be added.

∂05-Feb-86  1943	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	EuLisp  
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 5 Feb 86  19:41:51 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Wed 5 Feb 86 22:43:35-EST
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1986  22:43 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12181085938.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc:   fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: EuLisp


Well, Fitch's message looks like a declaration of war.  They want to
design a non-Common Lisp themselves at their meetings in France and get
this adopted as "ISO Lisp" -- presumably the one and only ISO Lisp.
I guess we'd better think hard about our options:

1. We could try to join them.  Maybe if we all pull together, we can
design something that we would all like better than Common Lisp.  There
certainly are a lot of things that could be improved in a careful
redesign.  Of course, the Europeans would be in control, there are some
flaming theorists in the group, and they'd feel compelled to change some
things just to assert their ownership.  So maybe it wouldn't come out so
well after all.  In any event, I can't see the big U.S. companies
embracing the idea that they have to spend another year putting in
changes in order to make the EuLisp people happy.

2. We could propose to the EuLisp people that they do their Lisp, we do
ours, and that we get ISO to bless them both: ISO EuLisp and ISO Common
Lisp.  This is the model I thought everyone would follow, back when
EuLisp was going to be something very small and/or very clean.  They
could have their nice little Lisp to write papers about, and we could
have our big ugly Lisp to do real work in.  But now that ISO is
competing for the same turf, I wonder whether going for two different
standards in the same area is feasible.  In any event, the Europeans may
not be in a mood to accept such a compromise, judging from their desire
to grab the name "ISO Lisp".

3. If there is to be only one ISO Lisp, we could fight to make it Common
Lisp (as defined by us), rather than EuLisp.  Unfortunately, I think
we're outgunned.  They've got representatives from several European
countries, while we've got only the U.S. and probably Japan.  Maybe we
could round up a few others, but it looks grim; so could they.  I think
that if the European manufacturers had anything to say about it, they
might go with Common Lisp so as not to be out of step with the rest of
the world, but I gather that these random academics are the ones who
control their countries' standards groups.

4. If we can't win in ISO, perhaps we can get ANSI to back Common Lisp
regardless of what the rest of the world does.  I believe Bob Mathis
mentioned a few such cases, but also said that they get quite messy.  I
suppose we might also consider other standards organizations like IEEE,
since we have now started down this road.

5. Or, we can do what we were planning on doing prior to Boston: set up
some sort of organization completely separate from ISO and let ISO go
off and do whatever totally irrelevant and silly thing the Europeans
want them to do.

Ideas?  I guess my choice would be to try for 2, and if we are rebuffed
to explore the feasibility of 3 and 4.  If they both look like lost
causes, we should lose no time in moving on to 5.

Sigh!  I really thought that when Xerox and IBM came over we had patched
up all of the Lisp world that mattered, but it didn't occur to me that
the LeLisp and Cambridge Lisp people, with a combined user community of
maybe 50 people, might have such an influence.

-- Scott

∂06-Feb-86  0505	DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	EuLisp  
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Feb 86  05:05:24 PST
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 411155; Thu 6-Feb-86 08:04:56-EST
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 86 08:07 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: EuLisp
To: Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU, cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12181085938.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Message-ID: <860206080733.2.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

I agree; try 2, else consider 3 and 4, else fall back on 5.  We only got
involved in this ISO stuff because we thought it would be relatively
straightforward.  Our original reason for avoiding ISO was exactly
because we didn't want to hold up Common Lisp with this sort of warfare.
I would very much like to hear Mathis's reaction to the EuLisp message.

∂06-Feb-86  1742	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	Fitch & Fahlman messages    
Received: from USC-ISIF.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Feb 86  17:42:13 PST
Date: 6 Feb 1986 17:40-PST
Sender: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Subject: Fitch & Fahlman messages
From: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
To: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF.ARPA] 6-Feb-86 17:40:02.MATHIS>


Let's  not  panic.   An ISO standard does not begin to exist just
because  somebody  starts  using  that  name  in  describing  his
projects.   We  will  have  at  least an ANSI standard for Common
Lisp.   Work  at  the  first  level   is   based   on   technical
considerations, not voting by countries.

Some  of  us  should  request  to  be on the EuLISP mailing list.
There is a good possibility I may attend their May 5 meeting  and
I  would  like  to  have  a  good  feeling about our thoughts and
position.

Bob

∂06-Feb-86  1748	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	LISP or Lisp 
Received: from USC-ISIF.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Feb 86  17:47:15 PST
Date: 6 Feb 1986 17:46-PST
Sender: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Subject: LISP or Lisp
From: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
To: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF.ARPA] 6-Feb-86 17:46:01.MATHIS>

You  probably  already  have  this  decided, but on a single font
terminal is it LISP or Lisp?  I would say at  this  point  it  is
just  a proper name for something and therefore should be written
Lisp, particularly when we talk about Common Lisp.

Bob

∂06-Feb-86  1806	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	LISP or Lisp 
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Feb 86  18:06:12 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Thu 6 Feb 86 21:07:59-EST
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1986  21:07 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12181330678.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Cc:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: LISP or Lisp
In-reply-to: Msg of 6 Feb 1986  20:46-EST from MATHIS at USC-ISIF.ARPA


Throughout Guy's book (except the cover), it is spelled "Common Lisp"
rather than "Common LISP" or "COMMON LISP", so that sets the precedent,
I think.  No reason to change.  Guy does use a funny font whenever he
says "Common Lisp", but that doesn't change things.  I think that

McCarthy's LISP 1.5 was all uppercase, I think, but that's because
capital letters were easier to carve on stone tablets.

-- Scott

∂06-Feb-86  1814	DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	LISP or Lisp 
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Feb 86  18:14:14 PST
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 412001; Thu 6-Feb-86 21:13:46-EST
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 86 21:16 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: LISP or Lisp
To: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA, cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <[USC-ISIF.ARPA] 6-Feb-86 17:46:01.MATHIS>
Message-ID: <860206211624.0.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

Our documentation has used "Lisp" exclusively for many years.
All-upper-case is generally hard to read.  It also makes the reader
think that the writer is using upper-case-only equipment, and generally
carries the flavor and ambience of the days of assembly-language
programming and so on.  Let's definitely stick with the "Lisp"
spelling.

∂06-Feb-86  0939	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	LISP standardisation 
Received: from GODOT.THINK.COM by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Feb 86  09:38:58 PST
Received: from desiderius by GODOT.THINK.COM via CHAOS; Thu, 6 Feb 86 12:39:20 est
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 86 12:40 EST
From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
Subject: LISP standardisation
To: Fitch%cs.ucl.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk, common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 5 Feb 86 17:27-EST from Fitch%cs.ucl.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Message-Id: <860206124034.5.GLS@THINK-DESIDERIUS.ARPA>

Thank you for your announcement to the Common Lisp mailing list
about progress on the EuLISP effort.

Would it be posssible for you (or someone else) to provide a brief
description of approximately what content is envisioned for each of
the language and programming environment levels, and what major
differences from Common Lisp are likely to develop within EuLISP?
I realize that precise statements cannot be had yet, but general
indications of the current thinking of the EuLISP committee would
be very helpful.

--Thanks,
  Guy Steele

∂07-Feb-86  1004	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	EuLisp  
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Feb 86  10:03:53 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Fri 7 Feb 86 13:05:13-EST
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1986  13:05 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12181504915.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: EuLisp


I have heard via a circuitous route that Chailloux, at least, believes
that the "English Leftists" have gone too far in trying to lay claim to
the name ISO LISP.  Maybe there's hope for compromise after all.  I'll
see if I can open a dialogue with Chailloux on this.

-- Scott

∂07-Feb-86  1026	RPG  	EuLisp   
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
I agree with Bob Mathis: I doubt that this is something we need concern
ourselves with at the moment, except insofar as we should express polite
academic interest in their project. In light of the fact that Bob has arranged
for the ball to be in the US court, there is not need to panic or take
quick action. 
			-rpg-

∂07-Feb-86  1216	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	LISP or Lisp    
Received: from GODOT.THINK.COM by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Feb 86  12:16:31 PST
Received: from katherine by GODOT.THINK.COM via CHAOS; Fri, 7 Feb 86 15:16:54 est
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 86 15:18 EST
From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
Subject: LISP or Lisp
To: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12181330678.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Message-Id: <860207151803.3.GLS@KATHERINE.THINK.COM>

What I used in the Common Lisp book was not a "funny font", just small
caps.  Quite by coincidence, I had been rethinking this issue yesterday
for a new series of documents I am writing, and I had decided to revert
to simply normal roman characters; thus "Common Lisp", "Lisp",
"Connection Machine Lisp", without using small caps.  So we all agree.
--Guy

∂08-Feb-86  1800	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Committees   
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 8 Feb 86  17:58:59 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Sat 8 Feb 86 21:00:44-EST
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1986  21:00 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12181853636.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Committees


We probably need to tell the Common Lisp mailing list about committee
membership soon, or people will start to wonder what went wrong.  It
might be good to announce the U.S. members of the steering committee and
technical committee members (subject to change once the official Lisp
committee is set up under ANSI this summer).  Maybe we should forget
about foreign members for the time being, since the Europeans are doing
their own thing and we can't communicate via net to Japan.

At the same time, we could tell people that we are going ahead with ANSI
standardization no matter what happens with EuLisp, and we'll decide
what to do about ISO later, when the situation has become clearer.

I believe that all the U.S. people we contacted have agreed to serve
except Griss.  Is that correct?  Any further word from Griss since he
asked how much time this was all likely to take?  Any further ideas
about a suitable substitute if Griss refuses?

-- Scott

∂09-Feb-86  1923	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	standardization   
Received: from USC-ISIF.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Feb 86  19:23:42 PST
Date: 9 Feb 1986 19:22-PST
Sender: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Subject: standardization
From: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
To: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF.ARPA] 9-Feb-86 19:22:47.MATHIS>

I'm glad that we agree on such controversial issues as what we're
talking about: Lisp.

Scott is right, we should let people know what we're  doing.   He
and  I  are  meeting on Monday the 17th.  If we have any thoughts
from the rest of you before that, then he and I could  coordinate
a message.

I  intend to submit our proposal to X3/SPARC on the 18th.  Here's
the current version:


1  Identification of Proposed Project

1.1  Title -- Common Lisp


1.2  Proposer(s)

Robert F. Mathis, 9712 Ceralene Drive, Fairfax, VA 22032,
(703)425-5923, on behalf of the Common Lisp Community.

The Common Lisp Community is an informal collection of people
from industry, academia, and government who have particpated in
the initial design and implementation of Common Lisp.  This group
has been in existence for five years, communicating primarily by
ARPAnet.  Occasionally the community meets, as they did in
Boston, December 9-11, 1985.  At that meeting they decided that a
national and international standards effort for Common Lisp was
appropriate and endorsed Bob Mathis as the coordinator and
organizer of that effort.


1.3  Date Submitted -- February 18, 1986


2  Justification of Proposed Standard

2.1  Needs

Lisp is the second oldest programming language still in current
use (after Fortran).  Lisp has traditionally been the language
used for most Artificial Intelligence programming, and is now
becoming popular for non-AI tasks as well.  Throughout its early
history, Lisp was the subject of much experimentation; this has
greatly improved the Lisp language, but has also led to a
proliferation of incompatible dialects.  This lack of
standardization has impeded the acceptance of Lisp in industry.

In 1981, with the encouragement of DARPA, an effort was begun by
a number of researchers at several organizations to define a
commonly acceptable version of Lisp.  The language specification
was written by members of this informal group, after extensive
discussions on the ARPAnet.  The resulting book, Common Lisp: The
Language by Guy Steele Jr., has received world wide acceptance.
MACLISP, ZETALISP, SCHEME, INTERLISP, SPICE LISP, S-1 LISP, NIL
(New Implementation LISP), "Standard" LISP, and Portable
"Standard" LISP have all been considered in the design of Common
Lisp; and the most useful features of each were incorporated.
Common Lisp, as described in the Steele book, has now become a de
facto standard within the US, and there is great interest in this
language in Europe and Japan.  Therefore, we feel that the time
has come to develop an official national and international
standard for this language.


2.2  Recommended Scope of Standard

The scope of the proposed standards effort is essentially the
same as the scope of the Steele book. Because of the nature of
the language and its implementations, the distinctions between
implemented language features, predefined system functionality,
and user defined supplementary capabilities are not the same as
in other languages; but there will still be some issues to
resolve about the size of the language, possible subsets and
supersets, and implementors' options.


2.3  Existing Practice in Area of Proposed Standard

Of the US hardware manufacturers who support any kind of Lisp on
their machines, the overwhelming majority have now announced
plans to implement the Common Lisp language as described in the
Steele book, either as their only supported Lisp product or
alongside some older dialect.  DARPA and other agencies in the
DoD are insisting on Common Lisp as the version of Lisp to be
used on their projects.  A Common Lisp Committee has been formed
in Japan to promote the language there. There is growing interest
in the language in Europe.


2.4  Expected Stability of Proposed Standard with Respect to Current

Since the Common Lisp language is still relatively new, we
anticipate that new revisions of the standard would appear more
frequently than for other standardized languages (approximately
every two or three years at the beginning).


3  Description of Proposed Project

3.1  Definitions of Concepts and Special Terms (if any)

None at this level and time.


3.2  Expected Relationship with Approved X3 Reference Models

None at this time.


3.3  Recommended Program of Work

3.3.1  Base Documents

Common Lisp: The Language by Guy Steele Jr., Digital Press,
Burlington, MA, 1984.


3.3.2  Time/Milestone Schedule

Preliminary draft plan of work for ANSI/X3 standarization of
Common Lisp with the formation of a new technical committee
(probably X3J13).

Milestone 0
February 18, 1986   These Documents to SPARC

Milestone 1 & 2
March 18-20, 1986   SPARC Meeting

Milestone 5
March 27, 1986      X3 Ballot out for "30 days"
May 2, 1986         X3 Ballot closes
May 27, 1986        Status Resolved
May 28, 1986        Press Release & Meeting Announcement
(August 4-6, 1986   ACM Lisp Meeting in Boston)

Milestone 6
September, 1986     X3J13 First Meeting
November, 1986      X3J13 Second Meeting
November, 1986      X3 Ballot on Officers
December 30, 1986   X3J13 Organization Complete
March, 1987         X3J13 Meeting on Issues
May, 1987           X3J13 Meeting on Drafting

Milestone 7
July, 1987          X3J13 Meeting on Draft

Milestone 8
Aug-Oct, 1987       X3J13 Ballot on Draft

Milestone 9
November, 1987      X3J13 Resolution of Issues

Milestone 10
January, 1988       Submission to X3

Summer, 1988        X3 Ballott complete
Fall, 1988          ANSI Standard Common Lisp


3.3.3  Potential Participants

Some leaders in the Common Lisp Community have already been
identified who are willing to serve: John McCarthy, Stanford
(inventor of LISP); Guy Steele, Thinking Machines (author of
Common Lisp: The Language); Scott Fahlman, CMU; Dick Gabriel,
Lucid; Dave Moon, Symbolics; Steve Squires, DARPA; Ron Ohlander,
USC-ISI; and Bob Mathis, Private Consultant. Other people we also
expect to be involved include (this is only a partial list):
Danny Bobrow, Xerox; Martin Griss, H-P; Jonathan Rees, MIT;
Jerome Chailloux, INRIA; and Masayuki Ida, Aoyama Gakuin
University.


3.4  Resources -- Individuals and Organizations Competent in Subject

Some of the individuals have been identified in Section 3.3.3
above. We also expect participation from major companies and
universities.


3.5  Recommended X3 Development Technical Committee (Existing or New)

We are recommending the formation of a new X3 Technical
Committee, which will probably be known as X3J13, for the work on
Common Lisp.


3.6  Anticipated Frequency and Duration of Meetings

Two meetings of two days each in 1986. Four meetings of two days
each with considerable additional discussion over the ARPAnet and
other correspondance media in 1987. Three or four meetings per
year after that.

A more frequent meeting schedule is planned at the beginning to
develop the standard we are all waiting for. After that the group
will have learned how to work together ina standards context and
meetings will only be necessary to confirm discussions and
tentative resolutions achieved by correspondance (primarily
electronic).


3.7  Target Date for dpANS to X3 (Milestone 10)  - January, 1988


3.8  Estimated Useful Life of Standard  -- 25 Years (with revisions)


4  Implementation Impacts

4.1  Impact on Existing User Practices and Investments

The Common Lisp design was based on the most popular dialects of
Lisp. The difficultly of conversion from one dialect of a
language to another depends not only on the dialects but also the
programming style of the user. Conversion to Common Lisp seems to
be in the same direction as current Lisp style and philosophy.


4.2  Impact on Supplier Products and Support

As mentioned earlier, of the U. S. hardware manufacturers who
support any kind of Lisp on their machines, the overwhelming
majority have now announced plans to implement the Common Lisp
language as described in the Steele book, either as their only
supported Lisp product or alongside some older dialect.  DARPA
and other agencies in the DoD are insisting on Common Lisp as the
version of Lisp to be used on their projects.


4.3  Techniques and Costs for Compliance Verification

The implementors in the Common Lisp community agreed at the
December 1985 meeting to begin sharing their existing
implementation test suites.  USC-ISI will collect them and make
them available on-line to interested parties.  Proposals for a
more comprehensive validation or certification process are now
being discussed.


4.4  Legal Considerations

The Steele book was published by Digital Press. Guy Steele has
already contacted them to be sure that no problems will arise
because of their copyright. It is important that the text of the
standard also be available in machine readable form for users and
implementors.


5  Closely Related Standards Activities

5.1  Existing Standards -- NONE


5.2  X3 Standards Development Projects -- NONE


5.3  X3/SPARC Study Groups -- NONE


5.4  Other Related Domestic Standards Efforts -- NONE


5.5  ISO Standards Development Projects
At the first plenary meeting of ISO/TC97/SC22 in November, 1986,
in Paris, an ad hoc committee on "LISP, PROLOG, and Other
Artificial Intelligence Oriented Languages" was established and
Bob Mathis was named as its convenor. The Common Lisp Community
continues to be in close touch with that ad hoc committee's work.

The Common Lisp Community has already expressed a desire to have
an international standard and would like the US member body
(ANSI) to propose an international work item for Common Lisp and
also offer to have the secretariat. The SC22 TAG has already
considered this idea and endorsed Bob Mathis as a potential
convenor of an ISO working group on Common Lisp.

A New Work Item (NWI) proposal for X3 to forward to ANSI and on
to ISO for work on Common Lisp is being submitted concurrently
with this proposal for the establishment of a new X3 project on
Common Lisp.


5.6  Other Related International Standards Development Projects

There is a group in Europe working on a project they call EuLISP.
They have not yet taken their work to the standards organizations
in their home countries. It includes members from France, UK,
Germany, and possibly other countries.  They characterize their
work as drawing on the Common Lisp experience.


5.7  Recommendations for Close Liaison

The ISO/TC97/SC22 Working Group (if one is formed), the EuLISP
group mentioned above, the informal Common Lisp Community, and to
a lesser extent the various professional groups interested in
artificial intelligence applications and programming.

∂10-Feb-86  0919	DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	standardization   
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Feb 86  09:19:32 PST
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 413758; Mon 10-Feb-86 12:10:50-EST
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 86 12:13 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: standardization
To: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA, cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <[USC-ISIF.ARPA] 9-Feb-86 19:22:47.MATHIS>
Message-ID: <860210121344.2.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

This looks fine to me.  (I don't have anything useful to add;
I just wanted to let you know that I'm still awake...)

∂10-Feb-86  0957	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	standardization   
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Feb 86  09:57:13 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 10 Feb 86 12:58:57-EST
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1986  12:58 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12182290227.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Cc:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: standardization
In-reply-to: Msg of 9 Feb 1986  22:22-EST from MATHIS at USC-ISIF.ARPA


Just a few comments on the SPARC proposal:

The timetable looks reasonable, I guess.  We ought to decide among
ourselves that we want to have (at least) decisions on all of the major
issues people have raised, a complete error system, and a cleanup of the
top-level-form/compiler issues by summer's end.  That would make it
possible for a revised version of Steele's book and/or a separate
specification document to be ready by the end of calendar 1986.  Object
oriented programming, windows, and iteration stuff doesn't have to be
settled in the first version of the standard, though it wouldn';t hurt
if they were.

I'm a bit worried about the lis tof potential participants leaking
before we've contacted all the people named, especially Ida and
Chailloux.  Would it hurt if we did not name these people specifically
right now?  Just say that we have begun discussions to identify foreign
participants.

Would this be stronger if we named the "major" companies involved?  It's
an impressive list.

I'm hoping that we can get by with less than four meetings in 1987.
Maybe we should say four, but try to get by with less -- the ANSI people
probably do not share our view of how much can get accomplished by
netmail, as compared to face-to-face meetings.  We've had more practice
at this than any other group in the world, I think.

Other than that, it looks good to me.

-- Scott

∂11-Feb-86  1150	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	Re: standardization    
Received: from USC-ISIF.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Feb 86  11:50:26 PST
Date: 11 Feb 1986 07:52-PST
Sender: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Subject: Re: standardization
From: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
To: Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Cc: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA, cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF.ARPA]11-Feb-86 07:52:20.MATHIS>
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12182290227.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>

I  agree  with Scott that as many major issues as possible should
be resolved by the end of summer.   You  are  the  best  ones  to
determine the specific topics.

I  would  rather  include a list of companies rather than people.
Scott  or  Dick  --  can  you  give  me  a  good  (and   publicly
distributable)  list of companies who have announced their Common
Lisp intentions.

About meetings -- the first  couple  are  just  to  organize  the
committee  and establish a common working framework for standards
activities (this will insure that everything is in the  open  and
above  board;  just  like some of you thought it might be hard to
break into ANSI and ISO, they think it will be hard for  them  to
get  involved  with your on-going activities); the next couple of
meetings are to resolve issues about the  revised  draft  of  the
standard;  then  there  is  a  period of formal voting and public
comment; the final meeting(s) of 1987 are only necessary if there
are  unresolved  issues from that public review.  Considering how
our plans to have  a  January  meeting  turned  into  mostly  net
messages and phone calls, I have the expectation that the planned
meetings of "X3J13" will also only be held when group activity is
necessary.

-- Bob

∂11-Feb-86  1215	RPG  	List of CL-supporting companies   
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA

The following currently offer Common Lisp, are about to offer Common Lisp,
or are looking for ways to get a Common Lisp:

Symbolics, LMI, TI, Dec, DG, Gould, Sun, Apollo, Prime, Tektronix,
Masscomp, AT&T, Ridge, Pyramid, MIPS, Sequent, Encore, Alliant,
Amhdahl (?), Cray, Sperry, NCR, HP, Xerox.

∂12-Feb-86  1008	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	List of CL-supporting companies       
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Feb 86  10:08:21 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Wed 12 Feb 86 12:47:37-EST
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1986  12:47 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12182812436.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Cc:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: List of CL-supporting companies   
In-reply-to: Msg of 11 Feb 1986  15:15-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


Are all of the companies you list as "looking for ways to get a Common
Lisp" prepared to go public with that?  I can think of many others who
have inquired or even obtained our sources, but I'd prefer to stick with
just those companies that have announced their present or future support
for Common Lisp.  There's enough of those to make an impressive case.

Here's a list of those:

Hardware manufacturers:
Symbolics, LMI, TI, DEC, DG, Gould, Sun, Apollo, Prime, Tektronix, H-P,
Xerox  

Software houses:
Lucid (many machines), Intermetrics (IBM/370), Gold Hill (IBM PC and
clones), Franz Inc.

I'm not aware of any public announcements by Masscomp, AT&T, Ridge,
Pyramid, MIPS, Sequent, Encore, Alliant, Amdahl, Cray, Sperry, or NCR
(or from IBM itself), so for now maybe we should leave such companies
off the list unless RPG can verify that they have gone public.
Certainly all of these and more have expressed various degrees of
interest.

-- Scott

∂12-Feb-86  1102	RPG  	CL Implementations 
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
These are, I believe, public: Masscomp, Pyramid, Cray, Amdahl. Pyramid is 
doing their own (and suffering mightily), the other 3 are Franz companies.
NCR is not public. AT&T is done by Franz. The rest are only interested.

I suppose we should only mention Pyramid and AT&T (done by Franz) in the
list.

∂12-Feb-86  1911	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	implemetations    
Received: from USC-ISIF.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Feb 86  19:11:19 PST
Date: 12 Feb 1986 19:07-PST
Sender: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Subject: implemetations
From: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
To: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: Mathis@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF.ARPA]12-Feb-86 19:07:26.MATHIS>

Dick and Scott:

How does the following sound:

The following hardware manufacturers currently offer Common Lisp,
are about to offer Common Lisp, or are looking for ways to get a
Common Lisp: Symbolics, LMI, TI, DEC, DG, Gould, Sun, Apollo,
Prime, Tektronix, H-P, Xerox, AT&T, and Pyramid.  Implementations
are also being done for a variety of machines by software
companies including: Lucid, Intermetrics, Gold Hill, and Franz
Inc.

∂12-Feb-86  1939	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	implemetations    
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Feb 86  19:39:37 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Wed 12 Feb 86 22:41:13-EST
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1986  22:41 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12182920520.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Cc:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: implemetations
In-reply-to: Msg of 12 Feb 1986  22:07-EST from MATHIS at USC-ISIF.ARPA


I think that with the trimmed-down list we now have, we can say "The
following manufacturers currently offer Common Lisp or have announced
plans to offer Common Lisp as a product: ..."

The point of my exchange with RPG was that it weakens the statement to
talk about manufacturers that are merely "looking for ways to get a
Common Lisp".  That's a very long list that goes from companies that are
very serious about this, but have not yet gone public, to a bunch of
companies that are not all that serious.

-- Scott

∂13-Feb-86  1052	RPG  	Companies who line up...
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
I'll let Scott's judgement prevail on the wording for this section.
			-rpg-

∂14-Feb-86  1158	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	ISO ad hoc group on Prolog and Lisp   
Received: from USC-ISIF.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Feb 86  11:57:47 PST
Date: 14 Feb 1986 11:31-PST
Sender: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Subject: ISO ad hoc group on Prolog and Lisp
Subject: [mcvax!inria!chaillou@seismo.CSS.GOV (Jerome Chailloux)]
Subject: [MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA]
From: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
To: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF.ARPA]14-Feb-86 11:31:31.MATHIS>

Chailloux  wrote  me in the context of my role as convenor of the
ISO ad hoc group on Prolog and Lisp.  For your  information.   --
Bob
	
Begin forwarded messages
Received: FROM SEISMO.CSS.GOV BY USC-ISIF.ARPA WITH TCP ; 14 Feb 86 08:27:04 PST
          from mcvax.UUCP by seismo.CSS.GOV with UUCP; Fri, 14 Feb 86 10:59:28 EST
          by mcvax.uucp; Fri, 14 Feb 86 11:33:24 +0100 (MET)
          by inria.UUCP; Thu, 13 Feb 86 18:05:37 -0100 (MET)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 86 18:05:37 -0100
From: mcvax!inria!chaillou@seismo.CSS.GOV (Jerome Chailloux)
To: mathis@usc-isif.ARPA
Return-Path: <mcvax!inria!chaillou@seismo.CSS.GOV>
             <mcvax!inria!chaillou>
Message-ID: <8602131705.AA11132@inria.UUCP>

This message is from Quyen TRAN (AFNOR). The same text has been send also
by postal mail.
Jerome.

----------------------------------------


objet: RESPONSE TO DOC SC 22 N 176
       (PROLOG - LISP)

Dear Dr. Matthis,

Following up our letter dated January 27 concerning the Preparation
of NWI on PROLOG and LISP, we would like to give you a collective response
in the name of the French SC 22 to each of the items contained in the
document you have issued.

1 - We propose the following contacts, in addition to the five individuals
   previously notified :

 - Mr Jerome Chailloux (expert of LISP)
   INRIA
   Domaine de Voluceau, Rocquencourt
   B.P. 105
   F-78153 Le Chesnay Cedex    (not 153)
   Tel : + 33 1 39 63 53 99    (not 90)
                39 63 54 56
   Telex : 697 033 F

- Mr Tadeusz HOLKA
  FCNS
  BULL
  B.P. 3
  F-78430 Louveciennes
  Tel : + 33 1 39 02 42 47
  Telex : 687 030 F

2 - Concerning national project, there is LE←LISP. Although not a French
  Standard, LE←LISP is a LISP version developed by INRIA and others, which
  has already been used by various French manufacturers.

  As far as the standardization is concerned, an AFNOR working group on
  PROLOG has functioned for a year and another one on LISP has just been
  created. The purpose of both groups is to prepare and to contribute to
  future ISO work.

  At European level, there is a study group including at present English,
  German and French developers and academics.

  This project, named EU←LISP, is intended to become the basis for an
  international standard specification and would be completed by July
  1986 and implementations would shortly follows.

3 - We are in favour of Alternative A with separate NWI on LISP and PROLOG
  to be assigned to separate working groups.

  There is no doubt that AFNOR will nominate experts to actively
  participate in these potential NWIs.

4 - We think that Plan I is untenable due to the unavoidable mail delays
  between America and Europe and we beleive that Plan II is more realistic.

  Submission of NWI Proposals to SC 22 in March is too close a target date
  since we are now in February. We must allow as many SC 22 member bodies
  to participate in the work before the ad-hoc group produces a NWI
  proposal.

  We suggest that you convene all the experts proposed by the Member
  bodies at a meeting on this purpose. We are ready to host such a
  meeting.

5 - No comments on the SC 22 document attached to doc N 176.

6 - Apart from the book by Guy STEELE you mentionned (p. 2 of 176) as a
  natural starting point we would like to see also EU←LISP Specifications
  referred to in same way.

  We will be pleased to send you information concerning EU←LISP and
  LE←LISP, and are eager to participate in the ad-hoc group.

We again apologize for not sending our response before the deadline but
we only received the document N 176 on January 27.

Sincerely yours


				Division
			Informatique - Secteur Tertiaire

			
				Q. TRAN



          --------------------
Received: By USC-ISIF.ARPA via direct-append with Hermes; 14 Feb 86 11:23:38-PST
Date: 14 Feb 1986 11:23-PST
From: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
To: mcvax!inria!chaillou@SEISMO.CSS.GOV
Cc: mathis@USC-ISIF.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <8602131705.AA11132@inria.UUCP>
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF.ARPA]14-Feb-86 11:23:36.MATHIS>
Sender: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA

Jerome Chailloux,

Thank  you  very  much  for  the  message from AFNOR.  The common
sentiment is for Schedule II.  As to work on a Lisp standard, you
know  I  am  very  interested.   There is some possibility that I
might be able to attend the EuLISP meeting in May.  We could also
use that trip to take care of ISO business.

Bob Mathis

          --------------------
End forwarded messages
		

∂20-Feb-86  1343	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	committee membership   
Received: from USC-ISIF.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Feb 86  13:43:04 PST
Date: 20 Feb 1986 13:42-PST
Sender: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Subject: committee membership
From: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
To: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: Mathis@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF.ARPA]20-Feb-86 13:42:40.MATHIS>

In respose to my general message about submitting the proposal to
X3, a number of people are expressing interest.  In particular  I
was  called  again  by  Fritz Kunze from Franz Inc.  reminding me
about their  desire  to  have  John  Foderaro  on  the  technical
committee.

We  need  to  announce  something  about  the  membership  on the
technical and steering committees we said we were  going  to  set
up.

Since  I don't know most of these people either professionally or
personally, I do not want to be the one who has  to  explain  why
they are not on the committees they want to be on.

I  think  we  need  a  couple  of  rounds  of discussion on this.
Fahlman's  message  of  Jan5  on  the  topic  of  "membership  in
committees" is still very relevant.

Bob Mathis

∂20-Feb-86  1459	RPG  	Membership    
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
I believe we need to make a public statement almost immediately.
I have gotten many messages from semi-angry people regarding progress
on the ISO front. I tried to call Griss again the last few days without
success, but I think that mentioning the desired US representatives
and including him would be ok. I would like to establish that
we are looking towards a blue-ribbon committee, not one which has every
company represented directly simply because they have some interest.
			-rpg-

∂20-Feb-86  1627	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Membership        
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Feb 86  16:27:08 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Thu 20 Feb 86 19:28:44-EST
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1986  19:28 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12184982623.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Membership    
In-reply-to: Msg of 20 Feb 1986  17:59-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


We probably do need to post something very soon.  I'm uncomfortable with
naming Griss before we get his OK -- it limits our options if he
refuses.  Has anyone tried netmail?  He answered some query yesterday.
I'll be happy to give this a try, but didn't want to confuse things with
RPG also trying to make contact.

If Griss turns us down, we'll need to think fast about other options.
Just go with the people we have already suggested?  Nick Gall, now at
BBN I think, has been offering some reasonable opinions of late.  If
we're not afraid of doubling up in a single university (somewhat less
imflammatory than having multiple people from one company), there's
Bawden at MIT and/or Rob Maclachlan at CMU.  Both have their heads
screwed on straight.

Maybe we should think one more time about Foderaro.  Those guys are
going to make trouble if we don't take him, and maybe he's not so bad.
Should we take him and avoid a fight?  If we gets wedged on something,
we can always outvote him.  The risk is that if we let him in just to
avoid a fight, 27 other companies may decide that this is a maneuver
they want to try as well, just so they are not left out.  But maybe it
wouldn't snowball.  Opinions?

I'm not sure how to explain what the proposed technical committee would
be, since the self-selected X3J13 committee, which won't exist till next
fall, presumably has the formal power to appoint such a committee for
real.  Maybe we say that this is the "interim technical committee" that
we seven were authorized to select at the Boston meeting, that these
people will be acting as a committee to come up with a set of
recommendations for the standard, and that we will propose that these
recommendations (and the committee membership?) be ratified by X3J13 once
it exists.

Does someone want to try to cook up the appropriate language for an
announcement and try it on the rest of us.  I'd do it, but I'm
super-busy until Sunday or so.

-- Scott

∂20-Feb-86  1744	RPG  	Griss etc
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA

I've tried every possible means of reaching Griss, including netmail
3 or 4 times.  He is currently out of town until monday. I will be
in the Boston area Sunday through Wednesday, so perhaps Scott could
try calling him next week?

If Griss refuses, I believe we should follow through on our committment
to world-class people. I would like to have Bawden or Weinreb over
Foderaro, even though that doubles up on institutions or companies. I'd
rank people as follows:

	Benson*
	Bawden
	Weinreb
	Brooks*
	Scherlis*
	Jonl White*
	Masinter
	Greenblatt

The stars are Lucid-affiliated people, and I will eliminate them from
consideration. I don't feel a personal need to keep Symbolics folks off of
the committee, and I would be happy to see someone with as good judgement
as Weinreb has on the committee.  If Foderaro is felt to be world-class,
I'll be happy to be outvoted, but I do not want to open a floodgate of
furor because we caved into the politics of letting companies in who
simply want to be in. I'd rather try to handle the furor of 2 Symbolics
folks because I can sucessfully argue his competence.
			-rpg-

∂20-Feb-86  1908	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Griss etc    
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Feb 86  19:07:07 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Thu 20 Feb 86 22:08:44-EST
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1986  22:08 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12185011753.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Cc:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Griss etc
In-reply-to: Msg of 20 Feb 1986  20:44-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


Dick,

I will send Griss netmail and will do my best to contact him on
Monday.  If we haven't been able to get through to him in the next
couple of days, I think that's sufficient evidence that he isn't
interested in doing this and we should eliminate him from further
consideration.

It would be an amazingly bad idea to take a second person from any one
company, especially Lucid or Symbolics, if we want to be able to turn
down people proposed by other companies.  That would create a major
firestorm.  It's too bad, because both Lucid and Symbolics have a number
of people who are, in my opinion, more qualified to be on this committee
than the obvious candidates from other companies, but there's no
objective measure and no way to get the community to accept this.  It
just looks very bad.

While I wanted to get at least one person from a big manufacturer of
stock hardware, I don't really see anyone to replace Griss.  In my view,
everyone on RPG's list is disqualified except Bawden and Greenblatt.
I'd go with Bawden if we need another body.

I believe that if Griss drops out, everyone on the proposed technical
committee has done time at MIT.  Oh, well...

-- Scott

∂20-Feb-86  1948	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Technical committee    
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Feb 86  19:47:51 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Thu 20 Feb 86 22:49:01-EST
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1986  22:48 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12185019084.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   griss%hp-hulk@HPLABS.ARPA
Cc:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Technical committee


Martin,

I believe that Dick Gabriel contacted you some time ago to see if you
would be willing to serve on the Technical Committee for Common Lisp
(part of the ISO standardization effort).  We are trying to put together
a group that satisfies two sets of constraints at once: on the one hand,
each member should be a person who is well-known and respected in the
Lisp community, who has some corporate or personal commitment to Common
Lisp, and who has experience both in language design and in the details
of Lisp implementation; simultaneously, we are trying to get people who
represent as many distinct segments of the community as possible, since
we can't include someone from every company and university.  We feel
that you meet both sets of criteria: your work on PSL is well-known, and
we would like to get another person from a big manufacturer of stock
hardware.

I believe that you had some question about the time commitment that
serving on this technical committee would entail.  Some of us are
putting in a LOT of time, but not everyone needs to do this.  I think
that the minimum time commitment for being on the technical committee is
the time it takes to read all of the mail that goes by on the list and
to think about what is being said at least enough to know whether you
agree or disagree with the rest of us.  (And, of course, if you do
disagree or want to add something, the time it takes to compose a
message.)  Add to this the time it takes to get to the face-to-face
meetings, which I fervently hope will be as few and as short as
possible.  I'm hoping that there will be no more than two technical
meetings a year.  You can see for yourself what the volume of mail is.

We'd very much like you to participate in this effort, but if you feel
you cannot find the time, please let us know.  Because the ISO process
is now moving forward, we need to announce a committee very soon.  If
we cannot make contact with you in the next few days, we will have to
move on to other people on our list of candidates.

Best Regards,
Scott

∂23-Feb-86  1601	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 23 Feb 86  16:01:29 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Sun 23 Feb 86 19:02:52-EST
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1986  19:02 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12185764352.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   mcvax!inria!chaillou@λseismo.CSS.GOV (Jerome Chailloux)λ
Cc:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA


Jerome, Gilles, and Bernard,

I apologize for the delay in answering your mail on Eulisp and Common
Lisp.  First your message to me had a bad address and had to be resent;
when it finally arrived, it did so in an unusually busy week.

First, let me agree with what Guy Steele has said: we certainly would
welcome the opportunity to cooperate with members of the Eulisp group.
Now that we seem to have established reliable netmail communication
across the Atlantic, that should be much easier; this was the main
barrier to seeking European participation back when the Common Lisp
effort started, five years ago.

You ask how stable or evolving the current Common Lisp definition is,
and how much outside input the "gang of five" is really willing to
accept.  Let me try to address that issue at some length, because it is
a crucial one.

One thing that has become clear to all of us in the five years we have
been working on Common Lisp is that it is MUCH easier to design and even
implement a clean, elegant Lisp specification than to get many diverse
projects to agree upon such a specification.  At the time we started the
Common Lisp design it was almost too late: a number of major Lisp
projects had already started down different paths, and some of them
already had sizable bodies of user-code and hundreds of users.  I'm
still amazed that we were able to pull this diverse community together
around a single standard.  In order to reach this agreement, we
sometimes had to make decisions based upon what already existed, rather
than always choosing the most elegant solution.  We made these
compromises because we all felt that having a single reasonably good
Lisp standard, supported by all manufacturers, was much more valuable
than having twenty different dialects, each of them beautiful.

Now we have the Steele book and all of the major U. S. manufacturers
have decided to support Common Lisp as defined in that book.  Many
implementations have already been done.  There is a growing body of user
code, several instructional books, and a lot of users.

This existing community wants us to develop a clear standard for the
language, to set up a formal mechanism for resolving ambiguities as they
arise, to create a validation suite, to discuss extensions in the areas
where Common Lisp is incomplete (such as the error system and support
for object-oriented programming), and to set up some mechanism for
sharing public-domain code.  They don't want to see any radical changes
in the language -- at least, not in the near future -- because they are
right now in the process of releasing their first implementations of
Common Lisp using the Steele book as a guide.

What this means is that the process of developing a standard for Common
Lisp must be a rather conservative one.  Incompatible changes can be
considered, but in evaluating each proposed change we must consider not
only the its merits but also its cost in terms of implementation effort,
changes to existing code, and re-training of users.  Clarifications,
extensions, and transparent changes are easy, as are proposals for
standardized subsets, but changes that go to the heart of the language
probably could not be adopted for this first round of standardization,
in 1987 or whenever.  More radical changes might be acceptable in a
later standard, perhaps for Common Lisp 1990.

Let me emphasize that this conservatism is not because we believe that
Common Lisp is perfect or because we want to keep total control of it;
it is just a question of what we believe that the Common Lisp community
wants and needs right now.  We are quite eager to get European
participation in this ongoing standardization effort, and we would like
to add some European members to the technical committee that will be
making these decisions for Common Lisp.  But it seems to me that this
only makes sense if the people involved share our desire to standardize
something that is not radically different (in an incompatible way) from
the existing Common Lisp.

We can certainly understand why someone might want to develop a new,
more elegant Lisp without all these pre-existing constraints.  I have
often felt the urge to do that myself.  Such a Lisp might be used in
education right away -- a role that Scheme seems to be filling in the
U.S.  It could also serve as a laboratory for the development of new
Lisp ideas, and eventually it might replace Common Lisp as the language
favored by industry.  If the EuLisp group chooses to work independently
on such a dialect, with Common Lisp serving only as a source of ideas, I
think that is a worthwhile thing to do.  If some members of this group
want to work on EuLisp and on standardizing Common Lisp as well, that is
good -- it will lead to better communication between the groups.  But it
is unreasonable to expect that the Common Lisp community will
automatically follow where you lead, whether or not you control ISO.

Let me also address the other points you raised:

You ask about the absence of a well-defined semantics for Common Lisp.
If by that you mean some sort of formal logical specification, I don't
believe that this technology is ready to handle something as complex as
Common Lisp.  Maybe I am wrong about that.  I would like to see such a
formal specification, but not if it means throwing side-effects and
things like Catch/Throw out of the language.

Common Lisp does indeed lack orthogonality and consistency in many
areas.  This is a result of the political process described earlier.
It is ugly, but not fatal.  Some of this can be cleaned up, but we must
move slowly and carefully.

My guess is that the first attempt to produce a Common Lisp standard
will include an error system, along the lines proposed by Kent Pitman,
and it may include an object oriented programming system along the lines
of CommonLoops.  If we cannot agree upon an object oriented system
quickly, this could be added later as a supplement to the standard.
Given the variety of hrdware and operating systems on which Common Lisp
runs, I see little prospect of standardizing on interactive interfaces,
windows, or graphics.  I think that we will see a few informal standards
emerge, one for time-sharing machines with character-oriented terminals,
one for high-resolution bit-mapped machines, etc.

We are trying to collect a validation suite at ISI, and to work out the
formal procedures for validation.  This is not going as quickly as I
would like, but I see no major problems in this area.

    - The current complexity of CL makes it doubtful that it can actually
    be used for the large scale production of industrial software in the
    framework of current software engineering technology, outside the
    closed world of Lisp hackers.  The Ada language has been heavily
    criticized on that basis, though it is much simpler and cleaner in
    design, and is a lot safer to use for the average programmer.

I disagree completely with this view.  Most of the complexity in Common
Lisp is due to the number of utilities that are built in.  It is the
equivalent of having a large external library of useful utilities in a
language like Ada.  This makes the language more useful for real work,
not less.  Of course, you do not try to teach a new user to use all of
these things at once; one needs tutorial materials that introduce the
failities in some reasonable order, a few at a time.

In any event, Common Lisp is already being used in industry for a number
of large-scale projects, and many people at CMU who were not Lisp users
in the past have begun to use it -- and to like it.  Now that the
language is available on conventional hardware, it is spreading very
fast.

    - we all share the same love for Lisp and we are here very afraid
    that a strong push such as yours with CL in its current state may in
    the long run have negative effects on Lisp itself, when large
    industrial projects find out that the language cannot be properly
    handled by standard programming teams. PL/1 or even Algol 68 (though
    nicely defined) did not survive, while Pascal (not a very good
    language, but simple) is doing rather well.

Again, I think that your fears are groundless.  Common Lisp is already
spreading very fast, and there seem to be no particular problems in
using it in large projects in industry.  We have also had good success
at CMU in teaching Common Lisp to undergraduates with no previous
programming experience.

I think we have the same goals, but a different perception.  We feel
that Common Lisp is imperfect, but good enough to serve as an important
vehicle for industrial AI and for most research; you feel that it cannot
succeed without many changes.  We feel that we must standardize on
approximately the present Common Lisp (with clarifications and some
extensions) or risk losing the agreement among manufacturers and
large-scale Lisp users that we have worked so hard to achieve; you feel
that we should change the language, radically if necessary, until it is
clean enough to appeal to the academic community.

I think that there is some room for compromise here, but only up to a
point.  If the goal of producing a single international Lisp standard
requires changes that threaten the unity of the existing Common Lisp
community, then we would have to give up that goal and follow our
separate paths.  Even then, I would hope that the two communities would
communicate and cooperate wherever possible.

Regards,
Scott Fahlman

∂27-Feb-86  1331	RPG   	Griss        
 ∂23-Feb-86  0744	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Griss        
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 23 Feb 86  07:44:34 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Sun 23 Feb 86 10:46:14-EST
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1986  10:46 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12185673942.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Griss    
In-reply-to: Msg of 23 Feb 1986  09:54-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


OK, for some reason the mail to me never arrived.  You gave the right
response, except that I'm a bit uneasy about encouraging him to delegate
the task of pre-filtering the mail.  But, as you say, he he takes
responsibility for making the decisions, it's not really any of our
business how he goes about this.

On another matter...

Have you said anything to Chailloux about being on this committee?  In
his last note he asked about how stable Common Lisp is and whether the
gang of five was really interested in input from outside.  I've been
meaning to send him something expressing my personal point of view on
this.

Basically, I think that we are interested in input from anyone who wants
to offer it, and we'd like to share the decision-making by including
some non-U.S. members on the technical committee.  But also that Common
Lisp has now reached the point that any incompatible changes will have
to be considered not only on their inherent merits, but also with
respect to the effort required to change existing implementations,
documentation, user-level code, and retraining users.  I think that the
price of admission to the Common Lisp design comunity is that people
have to take these issues at least as seriously as their own ideas about
truth and beauty in language design.

Of course, we have no objection to people doing other Lisp dialects that
are not so constrained.  It seems unlikely to me that a lot of the big
manufacturers will embrace such new dialects in the near future, but
they could be useful for education -- the role that Scheme seems to be
filling in the U.S.  The only thing that would cause trouble for us
would be an attempt to turn some non-Common Lisp into the ONLY Lisp
sanctioned by ISO or to persuade people that this is the real Common
Lisp.

What I might informally suggest to Chailloux is that if he can embrace
the rather conservative goals of Common Lisp, we'd like to have him on
the technical committee, whether or not he's also working on a distinct
Lisp.  He could play a valuable role in preventing needless difficulties
between the two groups.

-- Scott

∂27-Feb-86  1340	RPG  
 ∂23-Feb-86  1601	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 23 Feb 86  16:01:29 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Sun 23 Feb 86 19:02:52-EST
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1986  19:02 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12185764352.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   mcvax!inria!chaillou@λseismo.CSS.GOV (Jerome Chailloux)λ
Cc:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA


Jerome, Gilles, and Bernard,

I apologize for the delay in answering your mail on Eulisp and Common
Lisp.  First your message to me had a bad address and had to be resent;
when it finally arrived, it did so in an unusually busy week.

First, let me agree with what Guy Steele has said: we certainly would
welcome the opportunity to cooperate with members of the Eulisp group.
Now that we seem to have established reliable netmail communication
across the Atlantic, that should be much easier; this was the main
barrier to seeking European participation back when the Common Lisp
effort started, five years ago.

You ask how stable or evolving the current Common Lisp definition is,
and how much outside input the "gang of five" is really willing to
accept.  Let me try to address that issue at some length, because it is
a crucial one.

One thing that has become clear to all of us in the five years we have
been working on Common Lisp is that it is MUCH easier to design and even
implement a clean, elegant Lisp specification than to get many diverse
projects to agree upon such a specification.  At the time we started the
Common Lisp design it was almost too late: a number of major Lisp
projects had already started down different paths, and some of them
already had sizable bodies of user-code and hundreds of users.  I'm
still amazed that we were able to pull this diverse community together
around a single standard.  In order to reach this agreement, we
sometimes had to make decisions based upon what already existed, rather
than always choosing the most elegant solution.  We made these
compromises because we all felt that having a single reasonably good
Lisp standard, supported by all manufacturers, was much more valuable
than having twenty different dialects, each of them beautiful.

Now we have the Steele book and all of the major U. S. manufacturers
have decided to support Common Lisp as defined in that book.  Many
implementations have already been done.  There is a growing body of user
code, several instructional books, and a lot of users.

This existing community wants us to develop a clear standard for the
language, to set up a formal mechanism for resolving ambiguities as they
arise, to create a validation suite, to discuss extensions in the areas
where Common Lisp is incomplete (such as the error system and support
for object-oriented programming), and to set up some mechanism for
sharing public-domain code.  They don't want to see any radical changes
in the language -- at least, not in the near future -- because they are
right now in the process of releasing their first implementations of
Common Lisp using the Steele book as a guide.

What this means is that the process of developing a standard for Common
Lisp must be a rather conservative one.  Incompatible changes can be
considered, but in evaluating each proposed change we must consider not
only the its merits but also its cost in terms of implementation effort,
changes to existing code, and re-training of users.  Clarifications,
extensions, and transparent changes are easy, as are proposals for
standardized subsets, but changes that go to the heart of the language
probably could not be adopted for this first round of standardization,
in 1987 or whenever.  More radical changes might be acceptable in a
later standard, perhaps for Common Lisp 1990.

Let me emphasize that this conservatism is not because we believe that
Common Lisp is perfect or because we want to keep total control of it;
it is just a question of what we believe that the Common Lisp community
wants and needs right now.  We are quite eager to get European
participation in this ongoing standardization effort, and we would like
to add some European members to the technical committee that will be
making these decisions for Common Lisp.  But it seems to me that this
only makes sense if the people involved share our desire to standardize
something that is not radically different (in an incompatible way) from
the existing Common Lisp.

We can certainly understand why someone might want to develop a new,
more elegant Lisp without all these pre-existing constraints.  I have
often felt the urge to do that myself.  Such a Lisp might be used in
education right away -- a role that Scheme seems to be filling in the
U.S.  It could also serve as a laboratory for the development of new
Lisp ideas, and eventually it might replace Common Lisp as the language
favored by industry.  If the EuLisp group chooses to work independently
on such a dialect, with Common Lisp serving only as a source of ideas, I
think that is a worthwhile thing to do.  If some members of this group
want to work on EuLisp and on standardizing Common Lisp as well, that is
good -- it will lead to better communication between the groups.  But it
is unreasonable to expect that the Common Lisp community will
automatically follow where you lead, whether or not you control ISO.

Let me also address the other points you raised:

You ask about the absence of a well-defined semantics for Common Lisp.
If by that you mean some sort of formal logical specification, I don't
believe that this technology is ready to handle something as complex as
Common Lisp.  Maybe I am wrong about that.  I would like to see such a
formal specification, but not if it means throwing side-effects and
things like Catch/Throw out of the language.

Common Lisp does indeed lack orthogonality and consistency in many
areas.  This is a result of the political process described earlier.
It is ugly, but not fatal.  Some of this can be cleaned up, but we must
move slowly and carefully.

My guess is that the first attempt to produce a Common Lisp standard
will include an error system, along the lines proposed by Kent Pitman,
and it may include an object oriented programming system along the lines
of CommonLoops.  If we cannot agree upon an object oriented system
quickly, this could be added later as a supplement to the standard.
Given the variety of hrdware and operating systems on which Common Lisp
runs, I see little prospect of standardizing on interactive interfaces,
windows, or graphics.  I think that we will see a few informal standards
emerge, one for time-sharing machines with character-oriented terminals,
one for high-resolution bit-mapped machines, etc.

We are trying to collect a validation suite at ISI, and to work out the
formal procedures for validation.  This is not going as quickly as I
would like, but I see no major problems in this area.

    - The current complexity of CL makes it doubtful that it can actually
    be used for the large scale production of industrial software in the
    framework of current software engineering technology, outside the
    closed world of Lisp hackers.  The Ada language has been heavily
    criticized on that basis, though it is much simpler and cleaner in
    design, and is a lot safer to use for the average programmer.

I disagree completely with this view.  Most of the complexity in Common
Lisp is due to the number of utilities that are built in.  It is the
equivalent of having a large external library of useful utilities in a
language like Ada.  This makes the language more useful for real work,
not less.  Of course, you do not try to teach a new user to use all of
these things at once; one needs tutorial materials that introduce the
failities in some reasonable order, a few at a time.

In any event, Common Lisp is already being used in industry for a number
of large-scale projects, and many people at CMU who were not Lisp users
in the past have begun to use it -- and to like it.  Now that the
language is available on conventional hardware, it is spreading very
fast.

    - we all share the same love for Lisp and we are here very afraid
    that a strong push such as yours with CL in its current state may in
    the long run have negative effects on Lisp itself, when large
    industrial projects find out that the language cannot be properly
    handled by standard programming teams. PL/1 or even Algol 68 (though
    nicely defined) did not survive, while Pascal (not a very good
    language, but simple) is doing rather well.

Again, I think that your fears are groundless.  Common Lisp is already
spreading very fast, and there seem to be no particular problems in
using it in large projects in industry.  We have also had good success
at CMU in teaching Common Lisp to undergraduates with no previous
programming experience.

I think we have the same goals, but a different perception.  We feel
that Common Lisp is imperfect, but good enough to serve as an important
vehicle for industrial AI and for most research; you feel that it cannot
succeed without many changes.  We feel that we must standardize on
approximately the present Common Lisp (with clarifications and some
extensions) or risk losing the agreement among manufacturers and
large-scale Lisp users that we have worked so hard to achieve; you feel
that we should change the language, radically if necessary, until it is
clean enough to appeal to the academic community.

I think that there is some room for compromise here, but only up to a
point.  If the goal of producing a single international Lisp standard
requires changes that threaten the unity of the existing Common Lisp
community, then we would have to give up that goal and follow our
separate paths.  Even then, I would hope that the two communities would
communicate and cooperate wherever possible.

Regards,
Scott Fahlman

∂27-Feb-86  1350	RPG   	Re: Technical committee
 ∂24-Feb-86  1524	GRISS@HP-HULK 	Re: Technical committee  
Received: from HPLABS.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 24 Feb 86  15:24:10 PST
Received: from HP-HULK by hplabs.ARPA ; Mon, 24 Feb 86 15:22:53 pst
Mail-From: GRISS created at 22-Feb-86 08:15:26
Date: Sat 22 Feb 86 08:15:26-PST
From: Martin <GRISS@HP-HULK>
Subject: Re: Technical committee
To: Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Cc: GRISS@HP-HULK
In-Reply-To: Message from ""Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>" of Thu 20 Feb 86 20:23:56-PST
Resent-Date: Mon 24 Feb 86 15:20:28-PST
Resent-From: Martin <GRISS%HP-HULK@HPLABS>
Resent-To: rpg%su-ai@HPLABS

Return-Path: <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Received: from hplabs.ARPA by HP-HULK with TCP; Thu 20 Feb 86 20:23:54-PST
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU ([128.2.255.254]) by hplabs.ARPA ; Thu, 20 Feb 86 12:26:26 pst
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Thu 20 Feb 86 22:56:03-EST
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1986  22:48 EST
Message-Id: <FAHLMAN.12185019084.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To: griss%hp-hulk@HPLABS.ARPA
Cc: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Technical committee


Scott:

I have tried to reach Dick to discuss this, and we have been playing
telephone tag. I agree with your reasons for considering me. I am
interested in the ISO activity, and have some interest in serving, but
the time issue bothers me.  To what degree could I make use of an
"alternate" (or even nominate an alternate) from the company,
especially someone more directly involved in CL implementation (say
Alan Snyder from the labs, or Dave Mathews from FSD)?. To be
perfectty candid, most of my time these days is NOT focused on LISP
fundamentals, but much more of AI applied to SW engineering.

Have you also considered Bob Kessler for some role. He has taken up
the banner of PSL-like implementations in the Common LISP context?

I also have fairly good contacts with many of people on the Eulisp
committee, so again there is a rationale for my involvement, even if I
have to delegate some of the work.

Perhaps we could chat on phone?

M.

(415)-857-8715
-------

∂27-Feb-86  1654	RPG   	ISO     
 ∂22-Feb-86  2131	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	ISO     
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Feb 86  21:31:30 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Sun 23 Feb 86 00:33:06-EST
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1986  00:32 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12185562311.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: ISO 
In-reply-to: Msg of 22 Feb 1986  16:24-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


Dick,

From your mail, it seems you have received some answer form Griss.  I
can infer part of what he said from this, but if there's something you
can forward to me, that would be useful.  I received nothing.

My own view is that what I descirbed as a minimum is about as minimal as
we're willing to accept.  If he doesn't even want to put in enough time
to read all the mail, I say we go elsewhere.  I agree, of course, that
the slot does not automatically go to the next-best person at H-P, since
that's a big step down.

-- Scott

∂27-Feb-86  1657	RPG   	Re: ISO 
 ∂25-Feb-86  0601	GRISS@HP-HULK 	Re: ISO   
Received: from HPLABS.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Feb 86  06:01:26 PST
Received: from HP-HULK by hplabs.ARPA ; Tue, 25 Feb 86 06:01:03 pst
Date: Tue 25 Feb 86 05:59:07-PST
From: Martin <GRISS%HP-HULK@HPLABS>
Subject: Re: ISO 
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: GRISS%HP-HULK@HPLABS, fahlman@cmuc.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Sat 22 Feb 86 13:24:00-PST

Return-Path: <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Received: from hplabs.ARPA by HP-HULK with TCP; Mon 24 Feb 86 18:08:50-PST
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by hplabs.ARPA ; Mon, 24 Feb 86 18:09:25 pst
Date: 22 Feb 86  1324 PST
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: ISO 
To: griss@HPLABS.ARPA
Cc: fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU

Martin, I think that if you had an assistant read the mail and keep you up
to date, and if you made the decisions, then I could live with that. But
it is *your* name and judgement that we want to tap, not HP's. Alan Snyder
is knowledgeable enough to do an ok job, but he is not experienced enough,
nor is he `world-class.'  Dave Matthews is a hell of a nice guy, but
we are looking for a guy who fits in with people of the calibre of
Steele, Fahlman, and Moon. 
			-rpg-

I understand. Again, remember that I am not programming much these
days, mostly planning and mostly in new areas. I am not following CL
arguments closely on net, and don plan to spend much time checking
things
out.

M
-------

∂27-Feb-86  1658	RPG   	Details 
 ∂25-Feb-86  1042	GRISS@HP-HULK 	Details   
Received: from HPLABS.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Feb 86  10:42:42 PST
Received: from HP-HULK by hplabs.ARPA ; Tue, 25 Feb 86 07:43:02 pst
Date: Tue 25 Feb 86 07:41:03-PST
From: Martin <GRISS%HP-HULK@HPLABS>
Subject: Details
To: rpg%su-ai@HPLABS, fahlman@cmuc.ARPA
Cc: GRISS%HP-HULK@HPLABS

Could you give me some more details on this committee:

	Who are currently likely to be on it

	What is its charter and relation to other Cl-xxx
	subcommittees? To european groups?

	How long is it supposed to serve before reelection

	Are they supposed to create and edit any reports

	How many meetings? When and where? How flexible in setting
	date and venue?
	
M
-------

∂27-Feb-86  1701	RPG   	Details 
 ∂25-Feb-86  1850	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Details 
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Feb 86  18:50:46 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Tue 25 Feb 86 21:48:23-EST
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1986  21:48 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12186318768.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   Martin <GRISS%HP-HULK@HPLABS.ARPA>
Cc:   rpg@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Details


Martin,

Our tentative list of committee members is as follows:

Steering committee (concerned with ISO politics, etc.):

Bob Mathis, Steve Squires, Ron Ohlander, John McCarthy, Guy Steele, Dick
Gabriel.  (Basically, this is three political types, Steele and Gabriel
as liaison with the technical group, and McCarthy for added clout.)

Technical committee: Steele, Gabriel, Moon, Fahlman, Danny Boborow,
Jonathan Rees, and you.  Weinreb withdrew, since we all thought it
looked bad for Symbolics to have two members when we had to turn other
companies down.

Alan Bawden is probably first alternate; we all think that he would fit
in well, but didn't want to add both him and Rees from MIT.  Rees gives
us a formalist and a tie to the Scheme world.  We are under considerable
pressure from the Franz people to add John Foderaro to the list, but
we're trying to resist that without starting a fight.

We hope to add a couple of foreign members later.  One prime candidate
is Jerome Chailloux, if he's interested in working on this with the
understanding that things are going to be rather conservative from here
out, at least for the full Common Lisp language.  If he wants to combine
this with work on a subset or on a totally different EuLisp, fine.
Another candidate, as soon as we can establish reliable network
communication with him, is Masayuki Ida, who translated the Common Lisp
manual into Japanese and seems to be coordinating Common Lisp
standardization efforts over there.

I should mention that this is formally just an ad hoc technical
committee until such time as the X3J13 subcommittee of ANSI is formally
established, sometime this fall.  People get on that committee by
paying dues ($150/year, I think) and participating in the doings of that
committee.  This is the formal body that will establish the formal
technical committee under ANSI rules.  What we're trying to do is get a
group together to make a bunch of decisions before next fall, in the
hope and expectation that X3J13 will eventually rubber-stamp both the
decisions and the committees that were established.

I'm not sure how often elections are held for these committees.
Certainly one could resign and be replaced whenever that seemed
necessary, but I would hope that none of us would do this in the first
six months of the committee's formal existence (i.e. not before a year
from now).

The committee would have to prepare a recommendation for a language
standard to be adopted by ANSI and ISO.  We are exploring now whether
this can take the form of the Steele book, plus a set of clarifications
and changes, or whether we can use an updated edition of the Steele book
without getting into copyright problems, or whether we need some new
document written in "standard-ese".  Whatever the case, you would have
to read this thing but not write it (unless you want to).  Steele and I
will probably end up doing that, maybe with some outside help.

I'm not sure what to expect in the way of meetings.  I'm hoping that
most of the Washington/Geneva stuff can be handled by Mathis and maybe a
couple of other members of the steering committee.  I can't imagine that
there will be more than two meetings a year at which serious technical
stuff would be done.  In fact, I'm not at all sure that we'll need any,
since we've all become very adept at working things out via network.
There may be additional meetings to satisfy various bureaucratic needs,
but I doubt that you'd have to come to any of these, especially if they
have to be on particular dates in Washington.  I would hope that the
substantive meetings would take place in conjunction with other events
we're all going to or at elast would alternate coasts.  All I can say
for sure is that I'm willing to put time into this thing, but not to
travel a lot, so I'll be fighting like hell to keep that to a minimum.

The realtion to the other CL-xxx committees is easy.  They work out
proposals on various issues, but it's up to use to decide what goes
into the proposed langauge standard.  I'm monitoring all the subgroup
mailing lists, as is RPG, so nothing will take us by surprise.

The relation with the Europeans is a bit muddled right now.  Chailloux
is pretty reasonable, but if you saw the recent note from John Fitch,
you know that it is his view that the EuLisp group will develop a lisp
of their own design, drawing from COmmon Lisp but not constrained by it,
and that this will then become ISO Lisp.  The Eulisp group is probably
less than 5% of the size of the COmmon Lisp community in the U.S. and
Japan by any measure you care to choose: number of users, number of
machines, number and size of manufacturers, whatever.  But in ISO it is
one vote per country and the European standards committees tend to be
dominated by academics rather than manufacturers, so they might be able
to pull this off.

I see several possible scenarios:

1. The Eulisp effort falls apart or stalls due to internally
incompatible goals.  Since I've been on their mailing list, this looks
like a real possibility to me.  They haven't reached the hard part yet,
and have much less incentive to compromise than we had.

2. We cooperate with the EuLisp people, or maybe just those at INRIA.
They participate in the cleanup of big Common Lisp, and lead the effort
to work out subsets or multi-level specifications.  This is the solution
we all prefer.  Scheme is doing quite a good job as the clean Lisp for
academic purposes.  I'm not sure where EuLisp would fit.

3. They decide to go it alone, unconstrained by the Common Lisp design.
If they want to become an ISO standard, we agree to coexist: ISO Common
Lisp and ISO EuLisp.

4. If they insist on being the only ISO Lisp, we see who can gather the
most votes.  Maybe some of the European manufacturers will assert
themselves and force their countries to vote for Common Lisp over
EuLisp, rather than being cut off from the U.S. AI community.

5. If the Europeans win the vote at ISO, or if we just don't want to get
into a big fight over it, we simply standardize Common Lisp under ANSI
and let ISO do whatever silly thing they want it to.

I think that options 4 and 5 are pretty low probability, John Fitch
notwithstanding.

-- Scott

∂01-Mar-86  2154	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Membership   
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Mar 86  21:54:25 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Sun 2 Mar 86 00:55:01-EST
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1986  00:54 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12187401311.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Membership


In my view, Griss's imitation of Hamlet has gone on long enough.  If he's
this ambivalalent about joining the committee, he shouldn't be on it.  I
think we should contact him on Monday and ask for a clear answer one way
or the other.  We told him a week ago that we couldn't wait much longer.

If he doesn't join, that leaves us with Gabriel, Moon, Steele, Fahlman,
Rees, and Boborow.  Let me propose that we add Bawden and Foderaro.
Yes, that makes eight, but I doubt that we'll have many deadlocked votes.

The choice of Bawden is obvious: it gives us one more reasonable member
whom we all respect.  I don't think that people will complain about
there being two MIT people; it's not the same problem that you get when
one company seems to be packing the committee.

The choice of Foderaro is less clear, but the more I think about it, the
more I think it is a good move.  The main reason is that the Franz
community (not just the company) is a substantial constituency whom we
have made little effort to court in the past.  I don't want all those
people to feel discriminated against, and the way to avoid that is to
take one of their people aboard the technical committee.  Foderaro is
the one they want and, happily, also the least objectionable to us.
(I'd have a real problem with Fateman, just because his debating style
is really obnoxious.)  I think we're going to have enough political
problems with the Europeans, without needlessly creating a bunch of
enemies at home.  Foderaro will probably be very quiet, but if he turns
out to be full of bad ideas, we listen politely and then outvote him.  I
don't think he'll disrupt the decision process in any way.

There is the question of whether we can afford to buckle under to direct
lobbying of the sort that the Franz people have been doing.  I think
that we can make the case that we are taking Foderaro not because his
company asked us to, but because Franz is a popular dialect and he is
one of the key implementors.  His name DID come up in our discussions
before the lobbying began.  So we're still not letting each company have
a seat, which would be impossible in any event, but we are trying to
gather people and expertise from many of the major branches of Lispery:
Zetalisp, Scheme, Interlisp, Franz, and maybe (if Chailloux wants to
play) EuLisp.

I believe that RPG is not in favor of including Foderaro; I'd be
interested in hearing from the rest of you.

-- Scott

∂03-Mar-86  1207	Moon@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Membership
Received: from [192.10.41.45] by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 3 Mar 86  12:07:26 PST
Received: from EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 2017; Mon 3-Mar-86 15:07:37-EST
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 86 15:06 EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Subject: Membership
To: Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
cc: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12187401311.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Message-ID: <860303150651.7.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

Dan Weinreb has been on vacation for a couple of weeks.  He's due back later
this week, but you probably should not expect to hear from him until next
week, since it will no doubt take a few days to catch up on things.

Speaking only for myself, I don't give a flying **** who is on the committee.
If the next three months are as productive as the past three, no one else
will either.

The important thing is not whether Foderaro's ideas are good or bad.  The
important thing is that everyone on the committee, and enough people in the
community, agrees what the charter of the committee is.  I thought your
(Scott's) long message to the Europeans was an excellent statement of what
we are doing and not doing here.

∂03-Mar-86  2009	RPG  	Other candidates   
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Perhaps we should re-visit these choices:
	Hewitt
	Barber
	Greenblatt
	Masinter
	Kessler
			-rpg-

∂03-Mar-86  2030	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Other candidates       
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 3 Mar 86  20:29:19 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 3 Mar 86 23:29:51-EST
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1986  23:29 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12187910107.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Cc:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Other candidates   
In-reply-to: Msg of 3 Mar 1986  23:09-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


    Perhaps we should re-visit these choices:
    	Hewitt
    	Barber
    	Greenblatt
    	Masinter
    	Kessler

OK.  First, let me say that my suggestion that we include Foderaro was
in the context of being able to outvote him if we had to.  A couple of
randoms whose taste we disagree with or whose goals may not match those
of the rest of the community can be tolerated and may even be
beneficial; five or six would poison the process.

I am strongly opposed to including Hewitt.  He has horrible taste in
language design, is not an implementor, and has never contributed
anything to any dialect of Lisp as far as I know.  He is knowledgeable
on parallel symbolic computing issues, but Common Lisp does not do that
(and should not).  If he did anything at all on the committee, it would
probably be to inject great confusion into the object-oriented
programming debate.

Barber I don't know.  He might be OK.  Taking him would eliminte any
pressure to take Hewitt.

Greenblatt is responsible for most of the bad ideas in Lisp Machine
Lisp, along with a few of the good ones.  He certainly qualifies as an
implementor.  I haven't worked with him closely enough to know how he
would react when one of his ideas is shot down by the rest of the group;
my sense is that he would be quite stubborn, but maybe he has mellowed a
bit.  I could live with him if the rest of you think it's a good idea,
but I'm uneasy about this.

I could live with Masinter, but I think there's no point in this.
Bobrow provides us with the Interlisp perspective and with a
representative from Xerox, and is probably a bit easier to get along
with.

Kessler would be OK if Griss says no.  He's totally into his subset
stuff, but I get the sense that he understands the difference between
the goals of a subset and the real langauge.

I agree with Moon.  It's time to settle this and get on to the business
of making some decisions that people can count on.

-- Scott

∂06-Mar-86  2132	DLW@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Other candidates     
Received: from [192.10.41.45] by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Mar 86  21:30:38 PST
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 3055; Fri 7-Mar-86 00:30:49-EST
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 86 00:36 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: Other candidates   
To: Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU, RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12187910107.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Message-ID: <860307003619.8.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

I am also strongly opposed to including Hewitt, for the reasons Fahlman
enumerates.  If for no other reason, Hewitt should not be on the
comittee because he is not technically qualified.

Barber might be OK.  I don't know him that well but he has certainly
been spending a lot of time as lead implementor of a Common Lisp
implementation (albeit a subset, I guess), and he certainly seems like
someone we could work with smoothly.

What Fahlman says about Greenblatt is true, and furthermore there is
good reason to belive that he has not mellowed any.  I've spoken to him
over the last year and I've spoken to people who've worked with him, and
apparently he's the same Greenblatt I used to work for.  Stubborness is
one of his key traits.  He would work very poorly in a concensus group.

Regarding Masinter, I'm not sure why having two Xerox people would be
any better than having two Symbolics people.  I also feel he'd be hard
to work with.

I don't know anything about Kessler.

I've only met Fodorero a few times, but he seemed pretty reasonable and
open-minded at those times.  I don't know how to reconcile this with
Gabriel's reports.  With all due respect to Gabriel, he and Fodorero are
associated with companies that are active competitors, and perhaps that
might have made for some friction (but maybe this was all before the
companies).  (You could say the same thing about me and RG, of course,
but I did work with him for years before the LMI/Symbolics split-up.)
I'm not sure how we could get more information on which to base a
decision, given that we feel we have to say something very soon.

∂07-Mar-86  1226	RPG  	Committee
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA

I don't argue that Foderaro is not reasonable: I am willing to
ignore Franz Lisp as evidence either way. My discussions with him
have been cordial and his technical understanding is good. There
are many such people, but not all are regarded as being `world-class.'
I'd prefer only world-class people on this committee.

I do object to Fritz going to Mathis on this issue. I object to
certain varieties of political influence. I would not have objected to
Fritz calling or netmailing to one of us to plead his case.

Lucid, by the way, does not consider Franz a competitor. We refer clients
to them on occasion, and I know they refer clients to us.
			-rpg-

∂08-Mar-86  2049	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Committee    
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 8 Mar 86  20:49:03 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Sat 8 Mar 86 23:44:28-EST
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1986  23:44 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12189223490.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Cc:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Committee
In-reply-to: Msg of 7 Mar 1986  15:26-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


    I do object to Fritz going to Mathis on this issue. I object to
    certain varieties of political influence. I would not have objected to
    Fritz calling or netmailing to one of us to plead his case.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me.  There are probably a lot of
cunfused models out there about what procedure is going to be followed
in choosing this committee and what the size of it and the appropriate
criteria are.  If he called (either Bob Mathis or any of the rest of us)
to bully or threaten or apply pressure, that's one thing, but making his
company's desire and interest known to us, through the person who has
been designated as the official coordiantor for all this, seems quite
reasonable to me.  Calling several times is pushing it a bit, but we're
taking so long that maybe he thought we need a reminder.

--  Scott

∂09-Mar-86  0836	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Technical committee    
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Mar 86  08:36:11 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Sun 9 Mar 86 11:36:40-EST
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1986  11:36 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12189353141.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Technical committee


I was unable to reach Griss by phone last week.  We've got to get a
committee in place and start making a systematic attempt to "officially"
resolve the various technical issues that have been raised.  I think
that we should give up on Griss (he can join later if he requests this)
and announce the following technical committee:

Steele, Gabriel, Moon, Fahlman, Bobrow, Rees, Bawden, Foderaro

If someone has a specific objection or counter-proposal, say so, but we
really have to resolve this now and not dither about it any longer.

We should try to make contact with Ida, and we should invite Chailloux
to join if he is interested in being on a committee whose majority
intends to be conservative in dealing with deviations from the Steele
book.  But we should not wait for these developments.

Once the committee is named, we need to do the following:

1. Develop a statement of principles for what we think a standard should
include and under what circumstances we will condsider incompatible
changes from the silver manual.

2. Develop a schedule for completing the standard, and a set of
procedures for moderating our discussions, keeping track of any firm
decisions, and distributing these decisions.  A part of this is to
determine whether we go with the existing book plus a list of changes, a
new edition of the book, or a completely new document that is designed
to be a standard and not a user's manual.  (I lean toward the third
approach because it gives us a chance to do a compacting GC of the
manual, we can keep an absolutely current version online at all times,
and it gets rid of all the awkward entanglements with Digital Press.)

3. Resolve and record the answers to all those issues that we believe
are settled.

After that, we can begin work on the harder issues, perhaps with people
specializing in particular areas: object stuff,
compiler/eval-when/modularity issues, cleaning up the type system,
floating point stuff, etc.

-- Scott

∂09-Mar-86  1335	RPG  	Technical Committee
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA

I counter-propose:

Steele, Gabriel, Moon, Fahlman, Bobrow, Rees, Bawden

Which has the advantages of world-classness and oddness. I further propose
that we firm up exactly how we take input from the community as a whole.
I fear that implementation groups will have decisions made `behind their backs'
because they had a deadline that week. A mechanism that guarantees that
every important group has their say on issues is needed, I think. This should
satisfy not only the Franz folks, but the silent LMI's and TI's of the world.

Let me make this more clear. I believe that the `official' committee must
have the recognized leaders and no others to be able to make a dent on
the international scene. That is why I will not accept political
influence and `pay offs' as a reason to include people. On the other hand,
we need to build into the official decision-making system a way to include
all of the implementors who have jumped on the CL bandwagon. 

On to the rest of Scott's message:

Because the silver book is not acceptable as a user's guide, Lucid has
written its own. This book duplicates the material in the silver book, but
with some thought to making it easier for a user to handle. Furthermore,
all mechanisms and functions are discussed in identifiable sections, not
in bits and pieces throughout, as in the silver book. I suggest that,
at least, the style and format of the Lucid version be studied.

I vote to clean up the type system, but this will mean re-implementation
efforts to most groups. Decisions like this need highest priority.

			-rpg-

∂09-Mar-86  1423	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Technical Committee    
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Mar 86  14:22:52 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Sun 9 Mar 86 17:23:11-EST
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1986  17:23 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12189416221.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Cc:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Technical Committee
In-reply-to: Msg of 9 Mar 1986  16:35-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


RPG's counter-proposal is OK with me if it's OK with the rest of you.
I'd rather get on with this than argue.  But if we cut out Foderaro, we
will need a very carefully crafted statement of just what our criteria
are and how we plan to operate so that companies without members on teh
committee will not have any nasty suprises.  This should go out as part
of the message announcing the committee membership.  Dick, it sounds
like you've given all of this some thought.  Do you want to draft an
announcement message, that the rest of us can look at before it goes
out?

On the Lucid version of the manual, there are several obvious questions.
First, is it suitable as a specification as well as a user's manual --
complete, precise, and so on?  Second, the community already has a
manual whose copyright is under control of a single company; will the
Lucid version be any less encumbered?  Under what conditions might you
release this to be used as the starting point for a public-domain
specification?  Third, my view is that we need something online,
accessible over the network and printable by some widely available
techology (e.g.  source files written in TEX or simple ASCII text
files).  There would have to be a recording secretary (not necessarily
one of us) who keeps this thing up to date as decisions get made.
Should this activity take place at Lucid?  We could probably find the
people to do it at CMU, but the files would have to live here.

Can the rest of us get a look at this manual?

-- Scott

∂09-Mar-86  1532	RPG  	Technical Committee
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
I will draft an announcement and try to send it later this afternoon
to this (CL-ISO) mailing list. Thinking Machines seems to be rejecting
mail, so we should not move until Steele can read his mail.

On the issue of the Lucid manual:

It is of this form: Its chapters are in a similar order to Steele's.
The material in each chapter is broken into 2 parts, a general discussion
and the specific constructs. Each construct starts on a separate page;
each construct is discussed as to purpose, syntax, remarks, examples, and
cross references. The purpose says what the construct does, the syntax
is obviously described, the remarks concern the actions of optional
and keyword arguments, etc, the examples are obviously presented, and
the cross references are to related constructs.

In form it is similar, but more complete and verbose, than the EuLisp
specification. It is not in discursive form, but fairly precise and terse.
I think it needs some amount of work to be made precise enough for a
specification.

The book is copyrightable by Lucid, though it is only implicitly copyrighted
now. We have been careful to steer clear of copyright problems with Digital
Press by having a wide range of people read it and the Steele book for
incidental similarity of prose. Our copyright lawyers have been active in
this perusal. From my point of view I don't see anything wrong with 
using this document as a starting point, but with some caveats.

We intend to distribute this book somehow, as a user's manual. It will
be copyrighted for that purpose. If there is some way to put the book in
the public domain as a jumping off point without harming the copyright on
the version we distribute, I don't see a problem with it. I suppose that if
the CL committee alters the document enough, then that could be placed in the
public domain. I will check with the lawyers.

We intend to put our own manual online for Lucid customers. Public domainess
would allow this as well for a descendent work. Keep in mind that this book
describes Lucid Common Lisp specifically.

In summary, I want to protect Lucid so it can use the work as we have intended,
but if there is a way to let the CL committee start off with the text in the
public domain, I think things could be worked out.

For whatever document we use, I think that Lucid is willing to contribute
a recording secretary. We have an interest in keeping our own doumentation
up to date, and we have a largish writing staff. I am not sure, however, that
a private company is the proper place for such a secretary.

			-rpg-

∂09-Mar-86  1713	RPG  	Proposed Message regarding X3J13 Membership 
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA

Below is a proposed message announcing the committee memberships,
progress, and what to do next. Please comment and/or amend this.
Once we all agree, we should mail it out.

Subject: Members of the Common Lisp Committee

At the December Common Lisp meeting Bob Mathis, Scott Fahlman, Guy Steele,
Dan Weinreb, Dave Moon, and Dick Gabriel were charged with the duty of
nominating a technical committee and a steering committee for the purpose
of defining an ISO Lisp.  This message is to report on the membership of
those committees, to describe the actions we have taken towards making
those committees official, and to outline the next steps we need to take.

First, we have decided not to create the committee under DARPA
sponsorship, but to operate within the ANSI framework, setting up a
committee for Common Lisp under X3 tentatively known as X3J13.  X3J13 will
have international members, but we have not asked anyone outside the US to
join as yet, though we intend to invite some number.

There are two committess of importance, the steering committee and the
technical committee.  The steering committee is charged with guiding the
results of the technical committee through the standarization process,
particularly at the ISO level. The technical committee decides the the
language specification and develops a document specifying Common Lisp.

The American members of the steering committee are:

Bob Mathis, Private Consultant 
Steve Squires, DARPA 
Ron Ohlander, USC-ISI
John McCarthy, Stanford University 
Guy Steele Jr, Thinking Machines 
Dick Gabriel, Lucid

The American members of the technical committee were chosen according to
several criteria:

(1) The member must have a deep knowledge of Lisp and its implementation,
with experience in at least one serious Lisp implementation.

(2) The member must be a well-recognized, prominent individual.  He or she
must be someone whose reputation is recognized internationally.

(3) The member must represent an important segment of the current Lisp
community.

We recognize, though, that many important people have been left off of the
committee. In particular, not all implementation efforts are represented.
In order to recognize the contribution to Common Lisp that these efforts
have made by supporting Common Lisp and to ensure that the experience of
these efforts is not lost, we will ask each implementation group to
designate an individual to whom all technical decisions must be presented
before decisions are made.

Although these technical liasons will not officially vote on the technical
committee, the technical committee will consider the votes of these
individuals carefully when making decisions. One of the first tasks of the
technical committee will be to set up a set of procedures for making
decisions and accepting comments and proposals from the Common Lisp
community. Until then we can only state that a close working relationship
with the Common Lisp community and with the implementation groups in
particular is one of our main goals.

The American members of the technical committee are:

Alan Bawden, MIT
Dan Bobrow, Xerox
Scott Fahlman, CMU (Chairman of the Technical Committee)
Dick Gabriel, Lucid
Dave Moon, Symbolics
Jonathon Rees, MIT
Guy Steele, Thinking Machines

At this point a document has been submitted to the Standards Planning and
Requirements Committee of X3, known as SPARC, proposing the formation of
the X3J13 committee.  SPARC is the committee which must approve the
formation of any new technical committees. The document outlines the need
for such a committee, the scope of the standard, the potential members of
the committee, and the plan and schedule for accomplishing the standard.

I hope that the standarization work informally started in the Lisp community
will continue to fruition at the international level.

				Dick Gabriel
				Scott Fahlman
				Dave Moon
				Dan Weinreb
				Guy Steele
				Bob Mathis

∂09-Mar-86  2022	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Proposed Message regarding X3J13 Membership     
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Mar 86  20:21:43 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Sun 9 Mar 86 22:55:23-EST
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1986  22:55 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12189476695.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Cc:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Proposed Message regarding X3J13 Membership 
In-reply-to: Msg of 9 Mar 1986  20:13-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


Dick,

Thanks for putting that together.  It looks pretty good.  I've got some
tuning to propose on the presentation, and some modifications to propose
on the "technical contact" business.

Basically, I think we want to make clear that no final decisions will be made
until things have been discussed on the Common Lisp mailing list and
there has been sufficient time for itnerested parties to comment.  Also
that provision will be made for each implementation group to get some
sort of netmail access for one person, if they don't have it already.
I have no problem with having each company designate a spokesperson, if
they like, but I'm uneasy about having to communicate individually with
each of these people.

My machine has been flaking tonight, so I'll have to wait till tomorrow
morning to get these proposed changes off to you.  We may have to call
Steele by phone or something.

-- Scott

∂10-Mar-86  0958	RPG   	Proposed message       
 ∂10-Mar-86  0557	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Proposed message       
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Mar 86  05:56:53 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 10 Mar 86 08:30:39-EST
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1986  08:30 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12189581420.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Proposed message   
In-reply-to: Msg of 9 Mar 1986  23:54-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


Well, it is exactly the title that I'm worried about.  People might feel
that being the Technical Representative from Company FOO (or whatever we
call it) gives them an effective veto, or at least stalling privileges,
and not just a voice.  Still, I see your point.  Let me see what I can
come up with.

-- Scott

∂10-Mar-86  1008	DLW@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Proposed Message regarding X3J13 Membership   
Received: from [192.10.41.45] by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Mar 86  10:06:16 PST
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 3623; Mon 10-Mar-86 13:05:28-EST
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 86 13:10 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: Proposed Message regarding X3J13 Membership 
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA, cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 9 Mar 86 20:13-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <860310131049.2.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

This looks good.  The basic thing I (still) don't understand is the
interaction between ANSI and ISO, and I think some of the receipients of
the message, especially those who were not at the Boston meeting, will
also be confused.  Is this an ANSI standard or an ISO standard?  Do you
need to have international members on an ANSI committee?  Etc.

"the votes of these individuals" possibly should be "the comments of..."
or something, just to make it clear that they're not voting.

We might want to reiterate the statement that we intend for debate and
deliberation to be open, so that people not on the committee can still
present points, just as it has always been on the mailing list.  Or do
you actually want to limit discussion to the formal liasons, in which
case the question of "who gets to be a liason" becomes even more
critical?  What about world-class experts who do not represent any
particular implementation (suppose Bawden were not on the committee; his
comments would be just as helpful).

Nitpicking: I think Rees's first name is spelled "Jonathan".  Also, I
don't usually hear Bobrow called "Dan".  In general I think it might be
better to use full formal names, for appropriate tone.  (By the way, is
the Steele on the technical committee the father of the one on the
steering comittee?)

∂10-Mar-86  1010	DLW@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Proposed Message regarding X3J13 Membership   
Received: from [192.10.41.45] by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Mar 86  10:08:45 PST
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 3625; Mon 10-Mar-86 13:06:51-EST
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 86 13:12 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: Proposed Message regarding X3J13 Membership 
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA, cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 9 Mar 86 20:13-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <860310131215.4.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

Cancel previous message, I was fooled by window scrolling and
insufficient care in reading what was right in front of me.
Sorry.

∂10-Mar-86  1008	DLW@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Proposed Message regarding X3J13 Membership   
Received: from [192.10.41.45] by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Mar 86  10:07:41 PST
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 3624; Mon 10-Mar-86 13:06:04-EST
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 86 13:11 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: Proposed Message regarding X3J13 Membership 
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA, cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 9 Mar 86 20:13-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <860310131128.3.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

Oh, yeah, you left Moon off the list of technical committee members.

∂10-Mar-86  1025	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Griss   
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Mar 86  10:22:21 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 10 Mar 86 12:55:56-EST
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1986  12:55 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12189629710.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Griss


I made one last attempt to get through to Griss, and succeeded this
time.  He's willing to be on the committee if it's not too late.  He
would get other H-P people to help him organize some of the more complex
issues, but agrees that the responsibility would be his and that he
would not be doing this specifically as a representative of H-P.  He
also says that he cannot agree in advance to attend every meeting that
might be called if there is no flexibility as to time and place, since
he does have some other responsibilities, but that's the case with all
the rest of us as well.

I think that the committee looks much better with him on than it does
without him, and that we should put him back on the list.  He may not be
as active as some of the rest of us, but his perspective will be
available when we need it.  Griss could be instead of Bawden, in
addition to Bawden (making an even number), or we could add someone else
to oddify things again.  I'd go for "instead of", I guess, unless
someone has told Bawden that he is definitely in.

-- Scott

∂10-Mar-86  1313	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	Proposed Message regarding X3J13 Membership   
Received: from GODOT.THINK.COM by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Mar 86  13:12:11 PST
Received: from yon by GODOT.THINK.COM via CHAOS; Mon, 10 Mar 86 16:12:06 est
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 86 16:14 EST
From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
Subject: Proposed Message regarding X3J13 Membership 
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA, cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <8603100214.AA28066@GODOT.THINK.COM>
Message-Id: <860310161409.4.GLS@THINK-YON.ARPA>

    Date: 09 Mar 86  1713 PST
    From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>


    Below is a proposed message announcing the committee memberships,
    progress, and what to do next. Please comment and/or amend this.
    Once we all agree, we should mail it out.

    Subject: Members of the Common Lisp Committee

    At the December Common Lisp meeting Bob Mathis, Scott Fahlman, Guy Steele,
    Dan Weinreb, Dave Moon, and Dick Gabriel were charged with the duty of
    nominating a technical committee and a steering committee for the purpose
    of defining an ISO Lisp.  This message is to report on the membership of
    those committees, to describe the actions we have taken towards making
    those committees official, and to outline the next steps we need to take.

Were we charged with "nominating" or "appointing"?  If the former, then
presumably there is some ratification step before we can claim that the
committee *is* as stated below.

    First, we have decided not to create the committee under DARPA
    sponsorship, but to operate within the ANSI framework, setting up a
    committee for Common Lisp under X3 tentatively known as X3J13.  
								    X3J13 will
    have international members, but we have not asked anyone outside the US to
    join as yet, though we intend to invite some number.

Say rather: "ANSI committees are permitted to have members from other
countries.  We have not asked anyone outside the US to join as yet, but
we intend to invite some number for the benefit of international
experience and cooperation."

By the way, I spoke to Ida last week (he was in Cambridge), and he
expressed interest in serving on an ANSI committee.  Electronic mail
to him is supposed to be improving.

    There are two committess of importance, the steering committee and the
    technical committee.  The steering committee is charged with guiding the
    results of the technical committee through the standarization process,
    particularly at the ISO level. The technical committee decides the the
    language specification and develops a document specifying Common Lisp.

"the the"?  [typo]  Clarify whether or not the ISO level comes strictly after
ANSI acceptance, and indicate that status as an ANSI standard is a separate
and possibly independent goal.

    The American members of the steering committee are:

    Bob Mathis, Private Consultant 
    Steve Squires, DARPA 
    Ron Ohlander, USC-ISI
    John McCarthy, Stanford University 
    Guy Steele Jr, Thinking Machines 
    Dick Gabriel, Lucid

Be formal: give full people and company names.

    The American members of the technical committee were chosen according to
    several criteria:

    (1) The member must have a deep knowledge of Lisp and its implementation,
    with experience in at least one serious Lisp implementation.

    (2) The member must be a well-recognized, prominent individual.  He or she
    must be someone whose reputation is recognized internationally.

    (3) The member must represent an important segment of the current Lisp
    community.

Well, I guess that last one disqualifies me, unless I represent users.

Who's representing the theoreticians?  (How about Mitch Wand?  But don't
take this too seriously.)

    We recognize, though, that many important people have been left off of the
    committee. In particular, not all implementation efforts are represented.
    In order to recognize the contribution to Common Lisp that these efforts
    have made by supporting Common Lisp and to ensure that the experience of
    these efforts is not lost, we will ask each implementation group to
    designate an individual to whom all technical decisions must be presented
    before decisions are made.

This is an empty gesture unless there is some provision for feedback
from said individual.  Why not just say that discussions will be held
mainly over the net, and that there will be an opportunity for comments
from the LISP community before decisions are made final?

    Although these technical liasons will not officially vote on the technical
    committee, the technical committee will consider the votes of these
    individuals carefully when making decisions. One of the first tasks of the
    technical committee will be to set up a set of procedures for making
    decisions and accepting comments and proposals from the Common Lisp
    community. Until then we can only state that a close working relationship
    with the Common Lisp community and with the implementation groups in
    particular is one of our main goals.

    The American members of the technical committee are:

    Alan Bawden, MIT
    Dan Bobrow, Xerox
    Scott Fahlman, CMU (Chairman of the Technical Committee)
    Dick Gabriel, Lucid
    Dave Moon, Symbolics
    Jonathon Rees, MIT
    Guy Steele, Thinking Machines

Add Griss.  I have no objection to having an even number of committee
members; we can simply require a 5-3 vote to make any change.  I'm not
sure I would want anything important to hinge on a 5-4 vote anyway.
(Which reminds me of the standard legal conundrum:  what should happen
if Congress passes a law that henceforth requires a 6-3 vote of the
Supreme Court to declare any law unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court
subsequently declares it unconstitutional by a vote of 5-4?)

    At this point a document has been submitted to the Standards Planning and
    Requirements Committee of X3, known as SPARC, proposing the formation of
    the X3J13 committee.  SPARC is the committee which must approve the
    formation of any new technical committees. The document outlines the need
    for such a committee, the scope of the standard, the potential members of
    the committee, and the plan and schedule for accomplishing the standard.

    I hope that the standarization work informally started in the Lisp community
    will continue to fruition at the international level.

"I" => "We"?
				    Dick Gabriel
				    Scott Fahlman
				    Dave Moon
				    Dan Weinreb
				    Guy Steele
				    Bob Mathis

Alphabetize this list?

--Guy

∂10-Mar-86  1347	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	Proposed Message regarding X3J13 Membership   
Received: from GODOT.THINK.COM by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Mar 86  12:51:40 PST
Received: from yon by GODOT.THINK.COM via CHAOS; Mon, 10 Mar 86 15:52:10 est
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 86 15:54 EST
From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
Subject: Proposed Message regarding X3J13 Membership 
To: DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA, RPG@SU-AI.ARPA, cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <860310131049.2.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Message-Id: <860310155414.3.GLS@THINK-YON.ARPA>

    Date: Mon, 10 Mar 86 13:10 EST
    From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
							... (By the way, is
    the Steele on the technical committee the father of the one on the
    steering comittee?)

My dad would love that.  But he doesn't want to travel much either.

∂10-Mar-86  1454	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	Re: Proposed Message regarding X3J13 Membership 
Received: from USC-ISIF.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Mar 86  13:27:01 PST
Date: 10 Mar 1986 12:55-PST
Sender: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Subject: Re: Proposed Message regarding X3J13 Membership 
From: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF.ARPA]10-Mar-86 12:55:05.MATHIS>
In-Reply-To: The message of 09 Mar 86  1713 PST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>

Dick,

I think your message is very good.  As with anything there may be
some misinterpretations possible; so I am going to read it a  few
more times.

Why don't we set March 15 as a goal date to send it out?

-- Bob

∂10-Mar-86  1926	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Committee membership   
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Mar 86  19:24:45 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 10 Mar 86 22:25:28-EST
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1986  22:25 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12189733390.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Committee membership


Here is my attempt to polish up what Dick wrote.  The only real
substantive difference is in the technical liaison business, plus the
tentative addition of Griss to the list (in addition to Bawden).  I've
also tried to state more precisely how this all relates to ANSI and ISO,
as I understand this.

Let me know what you think.  I'd like for us to send this out as soon as
we've got a version we all agree on, preferably before March 15.

Commentary for internal consumption is in square brackets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the December Common Lisp meeting Scott Fahlman, Dick Gabriel, Bob
Mathis, Dave Moon, Steve Squires, Guy Steele, and Dan Weinreb were
charged with the duty of selecting a technical committee and a steering
committee to develop ANSI and ISO standards for Common Lisp.  This
message is to report on the membership of those committees, to describe
the actions we have taken towards making those committees official, and
to outline the next steps we need to take.

We have decided not to create the committee under DARPA sponsorship, but
rather to operate within the ANSI framework, setting up a committee for
Common Lisp under X3 tentatively known as X3J13.

The membership in X3J13 will be self-selecting: ANSI committees are open
to anyone who pays the dues ($150/year) and who participates actively in
the committee's work.  These organizations move very slowly: X3J13
cannot begin operating until next fall at the earliest.  Once the X3J13
committee is function, the technical and steering committees will report
to X3J13.  In the meantime, we expect to make considerable progress
toward producing an acceptable standard.

ANSI committees are permitted to have members from other countries.  We
have not asked anyone outside the U. S. to join either committee as yet,
but we intend to invite some members from outside the U. S. as a way of
getting the benefit of international experience and cooperation.

There are two committees that we propose to establish now: the steering
committee and the technical committee.  The steering committee is
charged with guiding the results of the technical committee through the
standarization process, particularly at the ISO level.  The technical
committee is to refine the language definition and produce a document
specifying the proposed Common Lisp standard.

The American members of the steering committee are:

Robert Mathis, Private Consultant 
Steve Squires, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Ronald Ohlander, USC Information Sciences Institute
John McCarthy, Stanford University 
Guy L. Steele Jr., Thinking Machines, Inc.
Richard P. Gabriel, Lucid, Inc.

The American members of the technical committee were chosen according to
several criteria:

(1) The member must have a deep knowledge of Lisp, with experience both
in the implementation and design of at least one serious Lisp
implementation.

(2) The member must be a well-recognized, prominent individual.  He or she
must be someone whose reputation is recognized internationally.

(3) The group, considered as a whole, must reflect the wide variety of
viewpoints and backgrounds that are present in the Common Lisp
community.

(4) The committee must not be so large that it is unable to reach
decisions with reasonable speed.

(5) The members are chosen as individuals with a commitment to the
success of Common Lisp as a widely used standard, and not as
representatives of their respective companies or organizations.

Obviously, if the committee is to be of reasonable size, it is not
possible for every company and implementation group to be represented on
the technical committee.  Our intention is to discuss each issue as it
arises on the Common Lisp mailing list and to invite any interested
individuals to observe and participte in this discussion.  The technical
committee will be responsible for making final decisions on what will go
into the proposed Common Lisp document, but no final decisions will be
made without ample opportunity for input from the whole community.  Some
disagreement is probably inevitable, but there will be no surprises.

While the opinion of each individual will be considered, companies may
wish to appoint an official spokesperson who is authorized to speak for
the company in technical matters.  We will attempt to arrange for
netmail access for one person from any serious implementation group that
does not currently enjoy such access.

The American members of the technical committee are:

[ Assuming we want to go with both Griss and Bawden...has Bawden agreed
to serve if asked, or was he on the fence? ]

Alan Bawden, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Daniel Bobrow, Xerox Corporation
Scott E. Fahlman, Carnegie-Mellon University
Richard P. Gabriel, Lucid, Inc.
Martin L. Griss, Hewlett-Packard, Inc.
David A. Moon, Symbolics, Inc.
Jonathan Rees, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Guy L. Steele Jr., Thinking Machines, Inc.

At this point a document has been submitted to the Standards Planning and
Requirements Committee of X3, known as SPARC, proposing the formation of
the X3J13 committee.  SPARC is the committee which must approve the
formation of any new technical committees. The document outlines the need
for such a committee, the scope of the standard, the potential members of
the committee, and the plan and schedule for accomplishing the standard.

We hope that the standarization work informally started in the Lisp community
will continue to fruition at the international level.

				Scott E. Fahlman
				Richard P. Gabriel
				Robert Mathis
				David A. Moon
				Guy L. Steele Jr.
				Steve Squires
				Daniel L. Weinreb

[ Have we got full, formal names for Mathis and Squires? ]

∂10-Mar-86  1928	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Technical committee, continued   
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Mar 86  19:28:17 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 10 Mar 86 22:29:00-EST
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1986  22:28 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12189734040.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Technical committee, continued


By the way, I wouldn't mind being chairman of the technical committee,
for a while, anyway, but I think the chairman should be elected by the
committee and not appointed in advance.  I thank Dick for the
nomination, however.

-- Scott

∂10-Mar-86  1936	Moon@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Technical Committee 
Received: from [192.10.41.45] by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Mar 86  19:35:57 PST
Received: from LONG-TAILED-JAEGER.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 3791; Mon 10-Mar-86 22:35:44-EST
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 86 22:38 EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Subject: Technical Committee
To: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12189416221.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Message-ID: <860310223805.9.MOON@LONG-TAILED-JAEGER.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

    Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1986  17:23 EST
    From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
    But if we cut out Foderaro, we
    will need a very carefully crafted statement of just what our criteria
    are and how we plan to operate so that companies without members on teh
    committee will not have any nasty suprises.

Surely at this point no one thinks we are going to make any hasty decisions!
It's not only Franz inc, and not only other implementing companies that need
to be safe from nasty surprises, it's the user community.  Those of us with
new ideas about how languages should work must keep those interests separate
from the work of the Common Lisp technical committee.

I think we ought to be looking at a timescale of three years for any actual
changes to the language (as opposed to mere clarifications of ambiguous
language in the manual, which could reasonably be on a one-year timescale).
Don't forget that we're talking now about implementations with tens of
thousands of users, put out by professional organizations that are serious
about quality control, documentation, compatibility, support, training, and
all those good things that universities are lucky enough not to have to worry
about.  We can't just change something and shout down the hall to all four
users that it has changed and they need to update their programs.  Even
mere clarifications will take a lot longer than we might think they ought to,
and I don't think there is anything bad about that.

∂10-Mar-86  1954	@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA,@LONG-TAILED-JAEGER.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	Proposed Message regarding X3J13 Membership 
Received: from SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Mar 86  19:54:00 PST
Received: from LONG-TAILED-JAEGER.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA via INTERNET with SMTP id 252188; 10 Mar 86 22:52:13-EST
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 86 22:56 EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Subject: Proposed Message regarding X3J13 Membership 
To: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 9 Mar 86 20:13-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <860310225605.0.MOON@LONG-TAILED-JAEGER.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

I don't think I should bother commenting on this until you send out the
revised version based on the others' comments.  Otherwise I would just
be wasting everyone's time.


∂10-Mar-86  2024	RPG  	Membership Message 
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA

Scott's version of the message brings out more clearly the point I
understand poorly: How are X3J13 and the technical committee related?  The
technical committee labors to produce a document, and X3J13 votes on it?
Is it a majority vote? A super-majority vote?

This point requires more discussion in the message, and I didn't include
it because I didn't know it.

			-rpg-

∂11-Mar-86  0717	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	Technical committee, continued 
Received: from GODOT.THINK.COM by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Mar 86  07:16:49 PST
Received: from guido by GODOT.THINK.COM via CHAOS; Tue, 11 Mar 86 10:17:26 est
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 86 10:19 EST
From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
Subject: Technical committee, continued
To: Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU, cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12189734040.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Message-Id: <860311101925.2.GLS@GUIDO.THINK.COM>

    Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1986  22:28 EST
    From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>


    By the way, I wouldn't mind being chairman of the technical committee,
    for a while, anyway, but I think the chairman should be elected by the
    committee and not appointed in advance.  I thank Dick for the
    nomination, however.

    -- Scott

I second.

∂11-Mar-86  0731	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	Membership Message   
Received: from GODOT.THINK.COM by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Mar 86  07:31:43 PST
Received: from guido by GODOT.THINK.COM via CHAOS; Tue, 11 Mar 86 10:31:52 est
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 86 10:33 EST
From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
Subject: Membership Message 
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA, cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <8603110427.AA07525@GODOT.THINK.COM>
Message-Id: <860311103356.3.GLS@GUIDO.THINK.COM>

    Date: 10 Mar 86  2024 PST
    From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>


    Scott's version of the message brings out more clearly the point I
    understand poorly: How are X3J13 and the technical committee related?  The
    technical committee labors to produce a document, and X3J13 votes on it?
    Is it a majority vote? A super-majority vote?

    This point requires more discussion in the message, and I didn't include
    it because I didn't know it.

			    -rpg-

I wondered about this too.  It seems to me that once X3J13 is formed it
can vote on any stupid thing it pleases.  (I don't know what ANSI's
official rules for conducting meetings and votes are, but X3J11 operated
by Robert's Rules, informally construed, when formally aking votes.
Most of the work got done in Committee of the Whole, during which time
the chairman had the prerogative of declaring a vote too close to be
meaningful and continuing debate.  The formal part usually consisted
merely of ratifying the committee's report, although sometimes those
formal votes contained surprises.)

Anyway, it seems to me that logically the best we can say is that this
technical committee we have nominated is intended to fill the gap until
X3J13 can really get underway, to provide clarifications and suggested
changes for X3J13 to work with.  This preliminary technical committee is
our only hope of producing a revised edition by 1987, as the ANSI
committee probably cannot produce anything until 1988 at the earliest, I
should think.  (It would be nice if someone could prove me wrong.)
--Guy

∂11-Mar-86  0807	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Membership Message     
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Mar 86  08:07:27 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Tue 11 Mar 86 11:08:14-EST
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1986  11:08 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12189872249.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Membership Message 
In-reply-to: Msg of 10 Mar 1986  23:24-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


There are two issues here: how it really works, and how much we want to
say in the message.

Here's my understanding of how it really works -- Bob Mathis should
correct me if this is wrong.  The normal model is that these X3mumble
committees get formed, people join, then they either try to work out the
issues in ponderous mass meetings or they appoint a technical committee
to do the detailed work.  Presumably the technical committee's output is
voted on by the committee of the whole, and then is sent to ANSI for
formal approval.  After than (maybe some overlap is possible) the same
proposal could be sent to ISI for approval there.

So there are three more hurdles to clear once the report comes out of
the technical committee: X3J13, ANSI, and ISO.  If we don't clear the
ISO hurdle because the Europeans have ganged up to stop us, that's not
so bad -- we still have an ANSI standard in that case.  I believe that
the ANSI and ISO votes have to be "take it or leave it", and that they
don't get to mess with the content of the proposal; I'm not sure if the
vote at X3J13 would be of that nature.

What we are trying to do is two things: first, get started on producing
a standards document long before X3J13 even exists, and certainly long
before they would have a chance to set up a technical committee; and
second, to present X3J13 with a sort of fait accompli.  The idea is to
hand them a complete or nearly complete specification backed the
heaviest names in Common Lisp and most of the companies BEFORE things
have a chance to get too political and confused.  While technically
X3J13 would have the right to appoint a totally different committee and
ignore us and our input, or to start messing around with the standard we
propose, we are betting that they will accept both the committee and its
work in toto.  A few dissenting voices may be raised, but unless we
really screw up, the opposition will be disorganized and scattered.

Obviously, the closer we can come to having a complete spec ready, the
easier this ploy will be.  But even if we're not quite done, we've got
some things in our favor: Bob Mathis will control the parliamentary
machinery; the Common Lisp community is used to looking to us for
leadership; we could, as a last resort, refuse to have anything to do
with the ANSI standard unless they accept the committee and its output
without a lot of changes.  If the standard is not complete, we will
propose that the same committee be appointed to finish it.  In theory,
this could all come unglued at the X3J13 level, but I really don't think
there's much chance of that if we've done some useful work in the
meantime.

So that's my model of how this is likely to work.  I don't think we want
to spell all of this out in the message in much more detail than what I
already said, because that would just invite the opposition to start
planning for an ambush.  The view we want to convey, I think, is the
following:

1. We need to get started, and the community has charged us with
selecting a committee to do this.  Here it is.

2. Technically, this will all come under X3J13, once that exists.

3. Without actually saying this, we give the impression that we fully
expect X3J13 to just rubber-stamp what we come up with.  We don't take
pains to point out that X3J13 could repudiate what we do, since that is
an invitation to do just that.

-- Scott

∂11-Mar-86  0926	RPG  	Clarfication  
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
With Scott's clarification, I suggest we send his version of the
message.
			-rpg-

∂11-Mar-86  1256	RPG   	Common Lisp Standard   
 ∂11-Mar-86  1221	ALAN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 	Common Lisp Standard    
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Mar 86  12:20:59 PST
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 86 15:21:44 EST
From: Alan Bawden <ALAN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject:  Common Lisp Standard
To: RPG@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
cc: ALAN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
Message-ID: <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].847056.860311.ALAN>

I understand that my name has been mentioned in connection with the Common
Lisp standard committee (or what ever it is called).  Before I either agree
to anything, or withdraw my name, I thought perhaps someone could tell me
something about just what I would be getting into.  I grew impatient with
the language-design-by-large-mailing-list-debate process some time ago, and
would not willingly return to it, but conceivably this would be a more
rational forum?  What's the story?

Committee
There is a small technical committee being set up, which is proposed to be:

	rpg
	Moon
	Rees
	Fahlman
	Steele
	Griss
	Bobrow
	Bawden

The idea is to come up with a new document before the end of the year.
This technical committee will then be the sole recommender to an ANSI
committee, called X3J13, which, we presume, will rubber stamp our
document.  The issues before the technical committee will be open to the
CL list people commenting, but the above committee makes the decisions.

I think we can survive your not being on the committee, but several people
(including me) strongly prefer that you would. I believe that things will
be more rational and smooth than the old way, but I could be wrong.

I will send you a copy of the proposed announcement message, which outlines
some of the political stuff, but don't show it around, as it is a draft.

			-rpg-

∂11-Mar-86  1409	Moon@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Committee membership
Received: from [192.10.41.45] by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 11 Mar 86  14:09:10 PST
Received: from LONG-TAILED-JAEGER.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 4077; Tue 11-Mar-86 17:08:34-EST
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 86 17:10 EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Subject: Committee membership
To: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12189733390.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Message-ID: <860311171059.7.MOON@LONG-TAILED-JAEGER.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

I've read the proposed announcement (in the referenced message) carefully
and don't see anything to object to in it.

∂12-Mar-86  0838	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	Re: Committee membership    
Received: from USC-ISIF.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Mar 86  08:38:14 PST
Date: 12 Mar 1986 08:37-PST
Sender: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Subject: Re: Committee membership
From: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
To: Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Cc: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF.ARPA]12-Mar-86 08:37:03.MATHIS>
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12189733390.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>

Scott,

Just a couple of minor corrections:

"The  membership  in  X3J13 will be self-selecting: X3 [not ANSI]
committees are open to anyone who pays the dues  ($150/year)  and
who   participates  actively  in  the  committee's  work.   These
organizations move very  slowly:  X3J13  cannot  begin  operating
until  next  fall  at  the earliest.  Once the X3J13 committee is
function [functional or functioning], the technical and  steering
committees  will  report to X3J13.  In the meantime, we expect to
make  considerable  progress  toward  producing   an   acceptable
standard.

"X3  [again  not  ANSI]  committees are permitted to have members
from other countries."

Also it is Robert F. Mathis and Stephen L. Squires.  Steele, Jr.

I talked to Steve just now on the phone.  He also agrees with the
message.   The  only  remaining doubt seems to be about Griss and
Bawden -- I am willing to go either way.

Scott, will you go ahead and send it out please.

Supplemental note about the functioning of X3 committees.   Scott
and  Guy  have  it  pretty  well  understood.   The purpose is to
achieve a concensus in favor of the standard.  A  committee  like
X3J13  could send up a proposal for which there was not unanimous
agreement.  X3 could accept it or send it back,  they  would  not
make changes to the technical content.  Another thing to remember
is your leadership position in the Common Lisp community.  People
working  on this standard will in general want it to happen, they
will want to reach agreement with you.  Companies that might have
opposed  a  Common  Lisp standard will have to be won over in the
same way you have won over other converts, like Xerox.   I  think
the  way  the  relationship  between  the X3J13 committee and our
steering and technical committeess is explained  in  the  current
message  is  good.   Trying to explain too much detail would only
further confuse it.  We may get some further questions (about  10
people  asked  for  copies  of  the  SPARC proposal), then we can
address their concerns.

-- Bob

∂12-Mar-86  1528	DLW@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Committee membership 
Received: from [192.10.41.45] by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Mar 86  15:28:40 PST
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 4550; Wed 12-Mar-86 18:28:27-EST
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 86 18:27 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: Committee membership
To: Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU, cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12189733390.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Message-ID: <860312182757.6.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

This looks fine to me.  I do not know what Bawden's status is, Have you
made sure that Bawden, Bobrow, Griss, and Rees know that this is coming?
They might possibly be surprised and/or upset to see their name
announced to everyone before anybody said anything to them.  I know you
and RPG have been in touch with some of them, but I wasn't sure if they
all know what's coming.  Anyway, the announcement looks fine now; thanks
to both of you for doing such a good job on this.

∂12-Mar-86  1621	RPG  	Membership    
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Griss agreed to Scott, Rees with me, I am talking to Bawden now.
Bobrow agreed to me.
			-rpg-

∂12-Mar-86  1706	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Membership        
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Mar 86  17:05:58 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Wed 12 Mar 86 20:06:41-EST
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1986  20:06 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12190232420.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Cc:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Membership    
In-reply-to: Msg of 12 Mar 1986  19:21-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


OK, as soon as we've got a clear answer from Bawden, I'll put in Bob
Mathis's minor changes and ship the thing.  I believe all of us on
CL-ISO have assented to the wording now (Mathis says Squires agrees).

Has McCarthy been informed of our plan to include him on the steering
committee?  He gave us a conditional yes and we are meeting his
conditions, but still we should do a round of protocol on this.

-- Scott

∂12-Mar-86  1743	squires@ipto.ARPA 	The Message
Received: from IPTO.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Mar 86  17:43:00 PST
Received: by ipto.ARPA (4.12/4.7)
	id AA06027; Wed, 12 Mar 86 20:43:27 est
Date: Wed 12 Mar 86 20:43:17-EST
From: Stephen Squires <SQUIRES@IPTO.ARPA>
Subject: The Message
To: CL-ISO@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: Squires@IPTO.ARPA
Message-Id: <VAX-MM(171)+TOPSLIB(113) 12-Mar-86 20:43:17.IPTO.ARPA>

I have been observing the process of reaching the stage emodied by the
message you are about to send. It is clear that you have arrived at a
very resonable and well thought out postion. 

I support the conclusions that you have reached and am comfortable with
some the the key decisions that you have made. Given the strength of the
community, I see no problems with (continuing to) have this activity
operate very effectively with out being formally under DARPA. In fact,
I see significant advantages in terms of being free of some of the
complications that were encountered by having Ada be a formal DoD
activity. The Common Lisp community is broader at this time than
Ada was at the time it was being developed. I see the this decision
as being consistant with the traditions of the Lisp community.

Congradulations and thanks to all of you that have helped to reach
this important milestone.

Stephen L. Squires


(I have a strong preference for spelling my first name "Stephen" and
some time ago decided that the short form of "Steph" is pronounced "Steve"!)
-------

∂12-Mar-86  1856	RPG  
 ∂12-Mar-86  1729	JMC  	re: ISO steering committee   
[In reply to message rcvd 12-Mar-86 17:27-PT.]

I forgot that I had agreed to do so, but ok.

∂12-Mar-86  2021	RPG  	McCarthy 
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
He also has agreed to be on the steering committee.
			-rpg-

∂13-Mar-86  1113	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Final draft (I think)  
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Mar 86  11:12:08 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Thu 13 Mar 86 14:12:12-EST
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1986  14:12 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12190430006.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Final draft (I think)


Here's the final draft with all changes incorporated.  It goes out as
soon as I hear that Bawden is aboard.  (Or if he declines, it goes out
with one line deleted.)  Let me know if you spot any other problems.

-- Scott

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the December Common Lisp meeting Scott Fahlman, Dick Gabriel, Bob
Mathis, Dave Moon, Stephen Squires, Guy Steele, and Dan Weinreb were
charged with the duty of selecting a technical committee and a steering
committee to develop ANSI and ISO standards for Common Lisp.  This
message is to report on the membership of those committees, to describe
the actions we have taken towards making those committees official, and
to outline the next steps we need to take.

We have decided not to create the committee under DARPA sponsorship, but
rather to operate within the ANSI framework, setting up a committee for
Common Lisp under X3 tentatively known as X3J13.

The membership in X3J13 will be self-selecting: X3 committees are open
to anyone who pays the dues ($150/year) and who participates actively in
the committee's work.  These organizations move very slowly: X3J13
cannot begin operating until next fall at the earliest.  Once the X3J13
committee is functioning, the technical and steering committees will
report to X3J13.  In the meantime, we expect to make considerable
progress toward producing an acceptable standard.

X3 committees are permitted to have members from other countries.  We
have not asked anyone outside the U. S. to join either committee as yet,
but we intend to invite some members from outside the U. S. as a way of
getting the benefit of international experience and cooperation.

There are two committees that we propose to establish now: the steering
committee and the technical committee.  The steering committee is
charged with guiding the results of the technical committee through the
standardization process, particularly at the ISO level.  The technical
committee is to refine the language definition and produce a document
specifying the proposed Common Lisp standard.

The American members of the steering committee are:

Richard P. Gabriel, Lucid, Inc.
Robert F. Mathis, Private Consultant 
John McCarthy, Stanford University 
Ronald Ohlander, USC Information Sciences Institute
Stephen L. Squires, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Guy L. Steele Jr., Thinking Machines, Inc.

The American members of the technical committee were chosen according to
several criteria:

(1) The member must have a deep knowledge of Lisp, with experience both
in the implementation and design of at least one serious Lisp
implementation.

(2) The member must be a well-recognized, prominent individual.  He or she
must be someone whose reputation is recognized internationally.

(3) The group, considered as a whole, must reflect the wide variety of
viewpoints and backgrounds that are present in the Common Lisp
community.

(4) The committee must not be so large that it is unable to reach
decisions with reasonable speed.

(5) The members are chosen as individuals with a commitment to the
success of Common Lisp as a widely used standard, and not as
representatives of their respective companies or organizations.

Obviously, if the committee is to be of reasonable size, it is not
possible for every company and implementation group to be represented on
the technical committee.  Our intention is to discuss each issue as it
arises on the Common Lisp mailing list and to invite any interested
individuals to observe and participate in this discussion.  The technical
committee will be responsible for making final decisions on what will go
into the proposed Common Lisp document, but no final decisions will be
made without ample opportunity for input from the whole community.  Some
disagreement is probably inevitable, but there will be no surprises.

While the opinion of each individual will be considered, companies may
wish to appoint an official spokesperson who is authorized to speak for
the company in technical matters.  We will attempt to arrange for
netmail access for one person from any serious implementation group that
does not currently enjoy such access.

The American members of the technical committee are:

Alan Bawden, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Daniel G. Bobrow, Xerox Corporation
Scott E. Fahlman, Carnegie-Mellon University
Richard P. Gabriel, Lucid, Inc.
Martin L. Griss, Hewlett-Packard, Inc.
David A. Moon, Symbolics, Inc.
Jonathan A. Rees, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Guy L. Steele Jr., Thinking Machines, Inc.

At this point a document has been submitted to the Standards Planning and
Requirements Committee of X3, known as SPARC, proposing the formation of
the X3J13 committee.  SPARC is the committee which must approve the
formation of any new technical committees. The document outlines the need
for such a committee, the scope of the standard, the potential members of
the committee, and the plan and schedule for accomplishing the standard.

We hope that the standardization work informally started in the Lisp community
will continue to fruition at the national and international levels.

				Scott E. Fahlman
				Richard P. Gabriel
				Robert F. Mathis
				David A. Moon
				Guy L. Steele Jr.
				Stephen L. Squires
				Daniel L. Weinreb

∂17-Mar-86  1121	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Committee memberships  
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Mar 86  11:18:34 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 17 Mar 86 14:20:37-EST
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1986  14:20 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12191480138.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Committee memberships


Things seem to have bogged down again.  What exactly is the situation
with Bawden?  Can anyone reach him by phone?  I'd really like to get
this thing out, and don't care all that much whether Bawden is on or
off, so I hate to see us bog down over this.

-- Scott

∂17-Mar-86  1300	RPG  	Bawden   
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Folks, here is what Bawden mailed to me this morning. He asked a week ago
about how the committee would be run. I sent him my best guess, and he
thought it over for a week, sending this. I am indifferent about having
him on at this point:

Subject:  Committee: Yes, with reservations
Well, I've thought about this CL Committee thing for a couple of days now,
and here are my thoughts.  

Like many people, I'm apprehensive about over-committing myself so that I
never get around to the really interesting things I want to do.  The
commitments that extract the most are the ones that steal just a little
time, but on an extremely reqular basis.  Unstructured mailing list debates
are big offenders of this kind.  This is one reason why I stopped
participating in Common Lisp discussions.

Common Lisp is not a language that it is possible to get passionate about.
It's an ugly language, scarred by the politics that formed it.  No one
advocates Common Lisp as more than an adaquate tool.  This makes it hard to
summon up enthusiasm for the task of fixing and clarifying its definition.
It makes it easy to get impatient with someone who dumps the same technical
and political issues behind some Common Lisp wart in my lap for the
seventeenth time.

    Date: 11 Mar 86  1256 PST
    From: Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>
    ...  I believe that things will be more rational and smooth than the old
    way, but I could be wrong....

If, under this new committee scheme, decisions can be made more efficiently
and less painfully, then I am willing to participate.  Unfortunately there
is no way to find out what it will be like without trying it.  If I accept,
I can't really guarantee that I will be able to contribute as fully as
everyone might wish.  

So yes, I'm agreeing to be on the committee, as long as it is clear that I
have reservations about my ability to fulfill the requirements.  I will
guarantee to give it a good try.

∂17-Mar-86  1335	Moon@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Bawden    
Received: from [192.10.41.45] by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Mar 86  13:32:31 PST
Received: from LONG-TAILED-JAEGER.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 6008; Mon 17-Mar-86 16:32:20-EST
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 86 16:34 EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Subject: Bawden   
To: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 17 Mar 86 16:00-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <860317163404.3.MOON@LONG-TAILED-JAEGER.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

Bawden's reservations appear similar to those expressed by Griss and by myself.
I'd be surprised if any member of the committee does not hold similar reservations
at this point about the possibility of it demanding more time than they are able
to give, and about the possibility of it being as much of a waste of time as the
Common-Lisp mailing list has been for the last couple of years.

This suggests that we should get on with sending out the announcement, with Bawden's
name included. 

∂17-Mar-86  1413	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	The Message  
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Mar 86  14:13:24 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 17 Mar 86 17:15:22-EST
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1986  17:15 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12191511933.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: The Message


OK, given Bawden's cautious assent, I'm going to send out the message,
with Bawden's name included, later tonight.

I agree with Moon that we are all probably reluctant to throw a lot of
time down what has been a rather ineffectual rathole of late.  Once
we've got a legitimate (or semi-legitimate) body ready to make
decisions, I have some ideas for how we might proceed in a more
effective way, making some solid decisions and getting them into a
written standard rather than just dithering all over the harder issues.
The idea is to get things operating more or less as they operated in
that last few months before the book was finalized, except in the
constitution of the group and in the form of the written result.  I'll
propose these things once the full technical and steering committees are
in session.

We should probably adjust some mailing lists accordingly, or make a
couple of new ones.

-- Scott

∂17-Mar-86  1508	RPG  	Mailing lists 
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
As soon as Scott sends out his message, I will do the following
to the mailing lists: quinquevirate will remain the mailing list for
private communications, cl-iso will be expanded to the full committee,
including DLW as an observer. cl-iso will be archived as
cliso.msg and cliso.<n> on [COM,LSP]. These archives will be
FTPable without login. 
			-rpg-

∂17-Mar-86  1657	Moon@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Mailing lists  
Received: from [192.10.41.45] by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Mar 86  16:57:14 PST
Received: from EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 6064; Mon 17-Mar-86 19:57:09-EST
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 86 19:55 EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Subject: Mailing lists 
To: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 17 Mar 86 18:08-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <860317195520.2.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

    Date: 17 Mar 86  1508 PST
    From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>

    As soon as Scott sends out his message, I will do the following
    to the mailing lists: quinquevirate will remain the mailing list for
    private communications, cl-iso will be expanded to the full committee,
    including DLW as an observer. cl-iso will be archived as
    cliso.msg and cliso.<n> on [COM,LSP]. These archives will be
    FTPable without login. 

Shouldn't there be separate mailing lists for the steering and technical
committees?

I would like to archive them at Symbolics also, so when we decide what mailing
lists are going to exist, I will send Dick the names of fake user IDs to put
on the mailing lists.  Those IDs will redistribute to me, DLW, and archive files.

∂17-Mar-86  1700	Moon@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	The Message    
Received: from [192.10.41.45] by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Mar 86  17:00:28 PST
Received: from EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 6066; Mon 17-Mar-86 20:00:24-EST
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 86 19:58 EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Subject: The Message
To: Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
cc: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12191511933.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Message-ID: <860317195838.3.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

    Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1986  17:15 EST
    From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>

    I agree with Moon that we are all probably reluctant to throw a lot of
    time down what has been a rather ineffectual rathole of late.  Once
    we've got a legitimate (or semi-legitimate) body ready to make
    decisions, I have some ideas for how we might proceed in a more
    effective way, making some solid decisions and getting them into a
    written standard rather than just dithering all over the harder issues.
    The idea is to get things operating more or less as they operated in
    that last few months before the book was finalized, except in the
    constitution of the group and in the form of the written result.  I'll
    propose these things once the full technical and steering committees are
    in session.

Good.  One of the few recent Common Lisp messages that I have bothered
to save is yours of 9 March that presents three points under the heading
"Once the committee is named, we need to do the following:".

∂17-Mar-86  1714	RPG   	Committee: Yes, with reservations
 ∂17-Mar-86  0054	ALAN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 	Committee: Yes, with reservations 
Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Mar 86  00:42:22 PST
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 86 03:43:15 EST
From: Alan Bawden <ALAN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject:  Committee: Yes, with reservations
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].852774.860317.ALAN>

Well, I've thought about this CL Committee thing for a couple of days now,
and here are my thoughts.  

Like many people, I'm apprehensive about over-committing myself so that I
never get around to the really interesting things I want to do.  The
commitments that extract the most are the ones that steal just a little
time, but on an extremely reqular basis.  Unstructured mailing list debates
are big offenders of this kind.  This is one reason why I stopped
participating in Common Lisp discussions.

Common Lisp is not a language that it is possible to get passionate about.
It's an ugly language, scarred by the politics that formed it.  No one
advocates Common Lisp as more than an adaquate tool.  This makes it hard to
summon up enthusiasm for the task of fixing and clarifying its definition.
It makes it easy to get impatient with someone who dumps the same technical
and political issues behind some Common Lisp wart in my lap for the
seventeenth time.

    Date: 11 Mar 86  1256 PST
    From: Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>
    ...  I believe that things will be more rational and smooth than the old
    way, but I could be wrong....

If, under this new committee scheme, decisions can be made more efficiently
and less painfully, then I am willing to participate.  Unfortunately there
is no way to find out what it will be like without trying it.  If I accept,
I can't really guarantee that I will be able to contribute as fully as
everyone might wish.  

So yes, I'm agreeing to be on the committee, as long as it is clear that I
have reservations about my ability to fulfill the requirements.  I will
guarantee to give it a good try.

∂17-Mar-86  1743	RPG  	Mailing Lists 
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
I will also create CL-Steering and CL-Technical mailing lists.
Cl-iso will be synonymous with CL-Technical. CL-Steering will
archive on CLSTR.MSG[com,lsp].
			-rpg-

∂17-Mar-86  1919	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Mailing Lists     
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Mar 86  19:19:14 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 17 Mar 86 22:21:24-EST
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1986  22:21 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12191567664.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Cc:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Mailing Lists 
In-reply-to: Msg of 17 Mar 1986  20:43-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


Dick,

I would like to propose a slightly different system of mailing lists.

Open technical discussions and the announcement of all final decisions
of the steering and technical committee should be on Common-Lisp.

We might want to move standards-related stuff to some new list such as
CL-Standard, but that list would recieve essentially all of the traffic
that is now on Common-Lisp.  The only reason for doing this would be as
a way to do a GC of inactive readers.

We need a *private* channel for the steering committee and one for the
technical committee.  The point is to be able to discuss things within
the relevant committees that might ruffle feathers if discussed in the
open.  By "private", I mean accessible only to members of the relevant
committees and to specifically invited observers.  So CL-Steering and
CL-Technical mailing lists are needed, but they should not be archived
in a place that is accessible to the masses.

I don't really care what happens to the old quinquevirate list.  I think
it would be good if we all stopped talking about the "gang of five" now
-- it irritates the people who feel that we really have been too
dictatorial up until now.

-- Scott

∂17-Mar-86  2034	squires@ipto.ARPA 	The Message
Received: from IPTO.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Mar 86  20:34:46 PST
Received: by ipto.ARPA (4.12/4.7)
	id AA18827; Mon, 17 Mar 86 23:35:31 est
Date: Mon 17 Mar 86 23:35:24-EST
From: Stephen Squires <SQUIRES@IPTO.ARPA>
Subject: The Message
To: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: Squires@IPTO.ARPA
Message-Id: <VAX-MM(171)+TOPSLIB(113) 17-Mar-86 23:35:24.IPTO.ARPA>

I agree with the emerging view that the Common Lisp process must continue
toward the next major accomplishment of handling the proposed revisions
so that the revised reference manual can be published.

I think that it is important that everyone keep in mind that Common Lisp
is an important part of a larger picture. The development and use of a
common Lisp is a very important accomplishment at this point in time
and is essential for the AI research community and the related applications
community achieve a much needed common base. There are other forums for
working out the Ideal Lisp. In fact, as this phase of Common Lisp development
gets underway it would be appropirate to have a small group interested
in focusing on more basic issues oriented to the future towards a more
Ideal Lisp to quitely get underway. It is important  that this not
detract from the very important Common Lisp process. It is also important
that as we see a new plateau being reached that we prepare for the next.
During this current phase we need to begin to include some junior people
to initially support the senior people and to serve as a source for
a new generation to take care of the Common Lisp becomes the DoD, ANSI,
and ISO standard. Some of the senior people need to turn their attention
toward the next plateau.

Dealing with these two objectives in a coordinated way should reduce
the tension that I see facing some of the people in their comments
on joining the technical committee. I have see this kind of situation
in other kinds of projects and have found this way of dealing with it
very helpful and productive.
-------

∂17-Mar-86  2110	RPG  	Mailing Lists 
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA

There are three mailing lists of interest, two new:

CL-ISO, which is this mailing list. I'm not sure why we'd want to
use it any more.

CL-STEERING, which contains,

rpg
gls%Think.COM
jmc
squires@isi
Mathis@isif
ohlander@isie
fahlman@cmuc
CL-Steering-from-SU-AI@Stony-Brook.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
bawden@mc
bobrow.pa@xerox
rees@mc
griss@hplabs

It is for use by the steering committee, but also contains members of
the technical committee.

CL-TECHNICAL, which contains,

rpg
gls%Think.COM
CL-Technical-from-SU-AI@Stony-Brook.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
Fahlman@cmuc
bobrow.pa@xerox
bawden@mc
rees@mc
griss@hplabs

These are the members of the technical committee. CL-Technical-from-SU-AI
contains Moon, Weinreb, and an archive file.

The bulk of the technical discussion will take place on the Common Lisp
mailing list, and private, decision-making discussions will take place
on CL-STEERING and CL-TECHNICAL. I have set up the lists so that CL-STEERING
and CL-TECHNICAL archive in private, non-accessible files. If you desire to
also keep archives, it would help the members of the committee speak
more openly if they knew you were not showing the archives broadly.

These mailing lists are now in place.

			-rpg-

∂17-Mar-86  2226	Moon@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Mailing Lists  
Received: from [192.10.41.45] by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Mar 86  22:26:25 PST
Received: from EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 6152; Tue 18-Mar-86 01:26:22-EST
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 86 01:24 EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Subject: Mailing Lists 
To: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 18 Mar 86 00:10-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <860318012435.8.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

    Date: 17 Mar 86  2110 PST
    From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
    I have set up the lists so that CL-STEERING
    and CL-TECHNICAL archive in private, non-accessible files. If you desire to
    also keep archives, it would help the members of the committee speak
    more openly if they knew you were not showing the archives broadly.

The archives at Symbolics have the same protection as sensitive in-house mailing
lists that aren't supposed to be exposed to our whole company (which is currently
very little).  If the members of the committee feel that isn't enough protection
they should speak to me and I will arrange something different.

∂18-Mar-86  0709	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	Mailing lists   
Received: from GODOT.THINK.COM by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Mar 86  07:09:06 PST
Received: from ubaldo by GODOT.THINK.COM via CHAOS; Tue, 18 Mar 86 10:09:38 est
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 86 10:11 EST
From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
Subject: Mailing lists 
To: Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA, cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <860317195520.2.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Message-Id: <860318101131.1.GLS@THINK-UBALDO.ARPA>

    Date: Mon, 17 Mar 86 19:55 EST
    From: David A. Moon <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>

	Date: 17 Mar 86  1508 PST
	From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>

	As soon as Scott sends out his message, I will do the following
	to the mailing lists: quinquevirate will remain the mailing list for
	private communications, cl-iso will be expanded to the full committee,
	including DLW as an observer. cl-iso will be archived as
	cliso.msg and cliso.<n> on [COM,LSP]. These archives will be
	FTPable without login. 

    Shouldn't there be separate mailing lists for the steering and technical
    committees?

    I would like to archive them at Symbolics also, so when we decide what mailing
    lists are going to exist, I will send Dick the names of fake user IDs to put
    on the mailing lists.  Those IDs will redistribute to me, DLW, and archive files.

I may want to archive them at Thinking Machines, too.
--Q

∂18-Mar-86  0711	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Mailing Lists     
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Mar 86  07:11:23 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Tue 18 Mar 86 10:12:59-EST
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1986  10:12 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12191697195.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   "David A. Moon" <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Cc:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Mailing Lists 
In-reply-to: Msg of 18 Mar 1986  01:24-EST from David A. Moon <Moon at SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>


I think that the level of privacy you describe is quite adequate.  My
basic concern was that we be able to send each other messages of the
form, "What are we going to do to shut up this turkey, he's ruining the
debate" (which would of course never apply to any of US), "If we decide
this way, it is really going to screw company X, but they're not an
important player here and they'll just have to take their lumps" and
things like that.  The idea is that we should all know precisely who is
listening when we're discussing sensitive decisions, and that is
currently not the case with the full Common-Lisp list.

-- Scott

∂18-Mar-86  0719	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	Mailing Lists   
Received: from GODOT.THINK.COM by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Mar 86  07:19:07 PST
Received: from ubaldo by GODOT.THINK.COM via CHAOS; Tue, 18 Mar 86 10:19:46 est
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 86 10:21 EST
From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
Subject: Mailing Lists 
To: Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU, RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA, gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12191567664.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Message-Id: <860318102140.3.GLS@THINK-UBALDO.ARPA>

    Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1986  22:21 EST
    From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
    ...
    I don't really care what happens to the old quinquevirate list.  I think
    it would be good if we all stopped talking about the "gang of five" now
    -- it irritates the people who feel that we really have been too
    dictatorial up until now.

I agree, and it will help us to remember that if we actually flush the
mailing list.
--Q

∂18-Mar-86  1031	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	[fateman: ANSI stuff]  
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Mar 86  10:31:04 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Tue 18 Mar 86 13:33:10-EST
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1986  13:32 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12191733610.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: [fateman: ANSI stuff]


Well, the John Foderaro Memorial Flame has arrived, right on schedule.

    Date: Tuesday, 18 March 1986  12:14-EST
    From: fateman at dali.berkeley.edu (Richard Fateman)
    To:   FAHLMAN
    cc:   fateman at dali.berkeley.edu
    Re:   ANSI stuff

    Scott: pardon my ignorance, but I do not know how the members of
    the technical committee satisfy the requirements placed on them by
    the letter.

    Was there a call for volunteers?
    Perhaps a call for additional nominations would be in order?

    Perhaps a 1-page description of each person, with,
    a list of selected publications, etc, would be appropriate?

Suggestions as to how we should answer this?  Ignoring it would probably
be a bad idea.

I think that on the issue of volunteers, we should say that we didn't
call for volunteers because every company would then have felt compelled
to put forward a candidate and then lobby for him, and since we couldn't
take them all we thought it would be unwise to start this circus, so we
did what we were charged to do: we selected the committee ourselves.  We
should also repeat that the full X3J13 committee will be open to anyone
who wants to join.

To answer the other part of the query, we probably need to put together
very short bios of all the members of the technical committee.  I don't
think that this should concentrate on publications -- this is not a
tenure case -- but on practical contributions to Common Lisp and to
other parts of the Lisp world.  The trick is to express this so that
there is a quantum gap between everyone on the committee ("world-class
people" in RPG's terms) and someone like Foderaro or Fateman.  This gap
has never been apparent to me -- that's why I wanted to include
Foderaro, though I don't want to back down now, since it would bring a
dozen other candidates out of the woodwork.

For those of us in the gang of five (minus one) it's an obvious case to
make: as the key participants in the Common Lisp design so far, we're
the experts: the existing Common Lisp manual should be a sufficient list
of publications.  Bobrow is easy to justify.  Griss, Rees, and Bawden all
have significant accomplishments to their credit, but how do we describe
that to make them sound qualitatively different?

-- Scott

∂18-Mar-86  1130	RPG  	World-class   
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Since I championed the world-class theory, I will propose an
answer/message later this afternoon.
			-rpg-

∂18-Mar-86  1525	DLW@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	[fateman: ANSI stuff]
Received: from [192.10.41.45] by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Mar 86  15:22:58 PST
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 6353; Tue 18-Mar-86 18:22:46-EST
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 86 18:29 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: [fateman: ANSI stuff]
To: Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU, cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12191733610.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Message-ID: <860318182915.6.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

Fortunately, it was a pretty low-temp flame, devoid of rancor, acrimony,
and the other fundamental alchemical elements of which Flame is
composed.  I agree completely that we were charged with selecting the
committee ourselves.  Calling for volunteers or nominations was not what
we were charged with and would not have been advisable.

I understand what you are saying about the "quantum leap", and I agree
that it would be hard to make a solid class that we are all "first rate"
and Foreraro isn't.  Fortunately, I don't think there's any need to do
that.  Being "world class" was a necessary condition, not a sufficient
one.

I don't think we should make an attempt to justify exactly how we chose
people, since the real algorithm involved our knowledge of peoples'
personalities and how they work with others.  In fact, that is why we
did it as a closed committee-selection group.  It's hard to explain this
without sounding arrogant or cabal-like; we should not allow ourselves
to be backed into a position of having to defend our method of choice.

If the community as a whole feels that the choice is not acceptable,
then they can flush and restart.  If Foderaro wants to try to raise a
groundswell (I truly don't believe that he does!), that is his right.
But just as the high-level ISO committees should not be allowed to
diddle with the CL spec, but merely accept or reject it, the community
as a whole should not be allowed to incrementally modify our list.

∂18-Mar-86  1731	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	[fateman: ANSI stuff]  
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Mar 86  17:31:29 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Tue 18 Mar 86 20:32:04-EST
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1986  20:32 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12191809902.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   "Daniel L. Weinreb" <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Cc:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: [fateman: ANSI stuff]
In-reply-to: Msg of 18 Mar 1986  18:29-EST from Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW at SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>


Dan,

Fateman's message was not a flame in the normal sense, but I thought I
detected a certain undercurrent of sarcasm and hostility, plus a desire
to trap us by making it a contest of publication lists, which he could
probably win.

Anyway, I agree that we should not be drawn into a position where we
would have to justify explicitly why we picked X over Y.  We've done
what we were charged to do.  Fateman is not going to be happy in any
event, and we shouldn't give him ammunition with which to stir up
allies.  But it probably would be wise to respond to his request that we
explain the qualifications of those who were chosen.

Anyway, let's see what RPG comes up with.

-- Scott

∂18-Mar-86  2006	RPG  	Proposed Justification Letter
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA

I'm not sure sending something like this is the right idea, but here
is my attempt at a justification message:

The purpose of this message is to shed some light on the decision-making
processs behind the selection of the technical committee.

I will present the criteria along with additional commentary enclosed in
brackets ([]).

(1) The member must have a deep knowledge of Lisp, with experience both in
the implementation and design of at least one serious Lisp implementation.

[Although one could argue that a non-Lisp individual with a deep
understanding of language design would be a good choice (and the ad hoc
selection committee did consider such individuals), we decided that only
selecting people from the Lisp community were essential. The candidate
must have struggled with at least one design and implementation of a Lisp
that is recognized as an important Lisp dialect:  Lisp implementation
projects are not sufficient. The individual must also be a user of Lisp.
In some cases, the criterion of technical expertise was held very high,
and special consideration was made where a candidate demonstrated
remarkable technical judgement.]

(2) The member must be a well-recognized, prominent individual.  He or she
must be someone whose reputation is recognized internationally.

[The X3J13 technical committee is the US representative in the
international arena. When Common Lisp comes up for a vote at the ISO
level, there is one vote per country. The US, the USSR, Monaco, Belgium,
and Liechtenstein, for example, get one vote each. The US committee should
contain mostly well-known, well-respected people, especially people
respected outside the US, so that the recommendations of the American
committee are taken seriously.  There can be no compromises made for
internal US politics as far as the committee membership is concerned. We
can settle our political differences during the deliberations of the X3J13
committee work, but the membership of the committee must be above
reproach.  For this reason, people who have done creditable work but who
are not known outside the US in the Lisp world had to have more than
compensatory technical merit to qualify for membeship.]

(3) The group, considered as a whole, must reflect the wide variety of
viewpoints and backgrounds that are present in the Common Lisp community.

[The committee cannot appear to have been stacked in favor of Common Lisp.
There is much interest in Scheme and Scheme-like languages, especially
outside the US. If only dyed-in-the-wool Common Lispers were represented,
the committee would not appear to be one whose main interest was promoting
a good Lisp for international standarization.  EuLisp, a European
contender for ISO standardization, is heavily influenced by Scheme and by
3-Lisp.  Our committe also must be above reproach here.]

(4) The committee must not be so large that it is unable to reach
decisions with reasonable speed.

[Many people are not willing to tolerate decisions by mass debate and
consensus. The outlines of Common Lisp are well-established, and the
decisions to be made are relatively minor compared with the main portions
of Common Lisp design. The decision-making procedures for the technical
committee are designed to give all organizations and responsible Common
Lisp individuals the US a voice concerning the issues, but not to cramp
rapid decision-making.]

(5) The members are chosen as individuals with a commitment to the success
of Common Lisp as a widely used standard, and not as representatives of
their respective companies or organizations.

[US politics, again, must be kept out of the committee.]

Another major consideration in evaluating potential members was their
ability to express their thoughts to each other and to the public. There
are several major Lisp implementors who were dropped from consideration
because they could not express themselves well enough to be public
spokesmen or to express their technical judgements.

Several times I have indicated that US politics must have no place on the
technical committee, as seen by the rest of the world. That doesn't mean
that US politics cannot have an influence on the decisions of the US
membership of the committee. Remember that X3J13 is open to public
membership; remember that each implementation group shall designate a
contact to make sure all relevant input is received regarding decisions.

I think it would demonstrate questionable judgement to state the
deliberations that went into choosing the individual committee members;
many lengthy discussions, vigorous debate, and soul-searching went into
the process of decision-making that the Common Lisp community asked us to
undertake last December. I believe that this committee is an excellent
one, and that ample means for guaranteeing input from all interested
parties are provided, not only by the X3 mechanisms, but also by the
additional structure we have set up.

				-rpg-

∂18-Mar-86  2117	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Proposed Justification Letter    
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Mar 86  21:15:29 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Wed 19 Mar 86 00:16:11-EST
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1986  00:16 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12191850699.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Cc:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Proposed Justification Letter
In-reply-to: Msg of 18 Mar 1986  23:06-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


Dick,

I don't think the kind of letter you propose would be useful, especially
if it were sent to the entire Common Lisp membership.

Right now, we've got only one disgruntled company (that we know of), and
there's no reason to believe that Fateman is especially hot about this
-- he does like to complain.  A public letter from us that sounds
defensive or that sounds like we are responding to a flood of criticism
is likely to create just such a flood.  Right now, all of the other
companies are likely to say "Well, if everyone else accepts these
choices, we will too."  But if it appears that we're under siege, things
could unravel in a hurry.  We should present this selection as a fait
accompli and see if we can get away with that.

Also, it is probably politically unwise to hold the Europeans up as the
reason we must all be united behind the strongest possible U.S. commitee.
Your wording about "internationally known" people in the original
message gets this idea across implicitly; to say more would be to
further harm our chances of patching things up with Europe, and in the
long run they're more important than the Franz crowd.

Finally, I think that you do not really respond to the question that
Fateman is asking.  You restate in more detail what the criteria are and
why they are important.  Fateman didn't ask that.  What he is asking is
what the people on the list have done to meet the criteria and,
implicitly, what they have that Fateman and Foderaro don't have.

I think that your message is a useful thing to hold in reserve, because
it will be the right sort of thing to send if a LOT of dissension breaks
out, but right now it's overkill.  Fateman is not going to be totally
happy in any event, so we should deal with his message in a way that
does no further damage, that provides him with no ammunition, and that
makes us feel that we've dealt with the situation honestly.  It is
probably a mistake to justify each of the choices we made in writing,
and certainly a mistake to discuss why others were not chosen.

I would suggest that we just say the following:

1. We made the choice ourselves, as we were instructed to do; asking for
volunteers was not appropriate.  (We've discussed this.)

2. Anyone who wants to can participate in the X3J13 committee, which will
have the final say on all this.

3. We are satisfied that every member of the committee, as announced,
meets the criteria and that every members adds something useful to
the mix.

4. Lots of other people also meet the criteria.  We had to choose a small
committee that could work effectively together.

Would that suffice?

One thing that wold make me feel easier about the whole affair is if I
knew more about Bawden's background.  I feel that if necessary, I can
justify all the other choices: the gang of five members are obvious;
Bobrow has been involved in Interlisp for a hundred years and is now
doing important work on object-oriented stuff; Griss has done important
work on portable Lisp implementations and he now represents one of the
big companies; Rees did implementaiton work on T and is now one of the
most prominent players in the Scheme world.  But all I know about Bawden
is that he has always given good advice and that the rest of you think
he's appropriate.  Could someone who knows him better fill me in on his
background, just so I don't get ambushed?

-- Scott

∂18-Mar-86  2144	Moon@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Proposed Justification Letter 
Received: from [192.10.41.45] by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Mar 86  21:44:08 PST
Received: from EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 6449; Wed 19-Mar-86 00:44:05-EST
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 86 00:42 EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Subject: Proposed Justification Letter
To: Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
cc: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12191850699.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Message-ID: <860319004205.7.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

I agree with your criticisms of Gabriel's letter and your 4 suggested points.

∂19-Mar-86  0726	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	Re: Proposed Justification Letter
Received: from USC-ISIF.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Mar 86  07:25:56 PST
Date: 19 Mar 1986 07:25-PST
Sender: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Subject: Re: Proposed Justification Letter
From: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
To: Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Cc: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA, Mathis@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF.ARPA]19-Mar-86 07:25:37.MATHIS>
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12191850699.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>

Scott (and the rest of cl-iso),

Dick's version was too lengthy and in someway made being left out
even harder to take.  I don't think we should send any such
message to the general mailing lists at this point.  If we each
get individual inquiries, then for the moment let's handle them
individually.  (Carl Hewitt called me the day before the message
went out just to find out what was happening.  I told him we had
taken a "conservative" approach to naming new members to these
committees since X3J13 could reconsitute them and redefine their
tasks.  At this point slow growth in the size of the committees
was important.)

Scott's reply to Fateman is about right.  I might combine points
3 and 4 and then not number them, but I think that's purely a
matter of style.  I would suggest he just send it to him
personally with only blind copies to anybody else.  If somebody
puts a negative message out to the whole community, we would
handle it differently.

I have begun a list of people that I want to be sure are informed
of the progress of the X3J13 proposal and committee.  It is only
fair that when we put people off by saying they can participate
in the X3J13 committee that we then make an effort to keep them
informed of that work.  If anyone has suggestions for that list,
please send them to me.

-- Bob

∂19-Mar-86  0738	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Proposed Justification Letter    
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Mar 86  07:38:09 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Wed 19 Mar 86 10:38:54-EST
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1986  10:38 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12191964063.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Cc:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Proposed Justification Letter
In-reply-to: Msg of 19 Mar 1986  10:25-EST from MATHIS at USC-ISIF.ARPA


Bob,

I am planning to draft a response to Fateman along the lines suggested.
I will show it to the rest of you before sending it, but having it
appear to come from me personally may be good psychology.

As for your list of people who are supposed to be kept informed about
X3J13, do you want to include people who are already on teh Common Lisp
mailing list, or just those who may be out of touch for some reason?  If
the former, the list is pretty long.

-- Scott

∂19-Mar-86  0834	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Proposed response to Fateman
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Mar 86  08:34:50 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Wed 19 Mar 86 11:35:33-EST
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1986  11:35 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12191974365.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc:   fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Proposed response to Fateman


I suggest the following message, to be sent from me to Fateman
personally.  It would not go out to the whole list, though we can't
ignore the possibility the he would forward excerpts from it if he wants
to challenge the committee composition.  I'm hoping and guessing that he
will grumble a bit and then let it drop.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard,

We did not ask for volunteers or nominations because we thought that
this would lead to a lot of political maneuvering: every company would
have felt compelled to put forward a candidate, and then most would have
been unhappy when we could pick only a few new members.  We picked the
technical and steering committees ourselves, as we were charged to do at
the Boston meeting.

On the "fame" issue, I think that the length of one's publication list
is not the right criterion.  The group that needs to accept the
committee and its work is the community of Common Lisp implementors,
tool-builders, and users, both current and potential.  Within that
group, reputation comes from association with the development of
well-known, widely-used Lisp systems or facilities and visible activity
on behalf of Lisp propagation and standardization.  I will admit that in
one or two cases we relaxed the fame requirement a bit in order to take
someone whose technical judgement and perspective we thought would be
important to the committee's work.  However, I think that we have a
committee whose collective reputation will carry considerable weight in
international circles.

Let me empahsize that there are very many people who meet the criteria
we set, and that we could only pick a few of them.  We felt that we
needed a small committee that could work effectively together to get the
job done, and that we needed a certain mix of talents and viewpoints.  I
don't think that it would be a good idea to discuss exactly why we
selected or didn't select specific individuals.

Once again, the technical discussions will be open to anyone who cares
to participate, and will operate by consensus werever possible.  Also,
membership in the X3J13 committee is open to anyone who chooses to
participate, and in the end they have the final control over what gets
proposed to ANSI and then to ISO.  The technical and steering committees
will operate under X3J13, once it is funcitoning.

-- Scott

∂19-Mar-86  1010	DLW@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Proposed Justification Letter  
Received: from [192.10.41.45] by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Mar 86  10:10:04 PST
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 6564; Wed 19-Mar-86 13:10:05-EST
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 86 13:16 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: Proposed Justification Letter
To: Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU
cc: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 19 Mar 86 00:16-EST from Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU,
             <FAHLMAN.12191850699.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>,
             The message of 19 Mar 86 00:42-EST from Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA,
             <860319004205.7.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Message-ID: <860319131632.1.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

I agree that RPG's letter should be held in reserve, for the reasons you
say.  I think that most of the community will simply be happy to see
that the committee is chosen, and the main pressure will be to proceed
to the next step.  Let's wait a few more days and see if there are any
other questions or proto-complaints about our procedures, before we do
anything.


Gee, don't you remember Alan Bawden?  Do you still have a copy of "Votes on
the First Draft Common Lisp Manual?"  He was one of the major contributors.
But, here's as much of a resume as I can think of:

Alan Bawden wrote the third and definitive version of the Lisp READer in
the MIT Lisp Machine system (Symbolics, TI, LMI), with a lexical
analyzer driven by an FSM produced by a "read table compiler", which is
something like a standard one (a la Aho and Ullman) but with several
tricky modifications because Lisp syntax required some extensions.  He
also wrote the PRINTer.  He wrote DEFMACRO and the backquote facility,
and was the main designer of them, based on various earlier and less
elegant hacks that had been floating around the Lisp community.  He was
the first person to figure out and understand nested backquotes.  He
wrote the full version of DEFSTRUCT.  He also wrote the microcode
implementation of bignums for the CADR/LM-2.  He and I did a lot of
design and implementation work on the package system, going through
about four different philosophies and implementations.  He worked out a
lot of the basic problems and various strategies for dealing with them.
He also did some amount of general system maintenance and bug fixing,
although not to the extent that Moon and I did.  All this work was done
at MIT and is/was used by all three companies.

In addition, he wrote the initial bignum implementation for the 3600,
during a summer job at Symbolics; that was his only official connection
with Symbolics (and his only connection now is that he sometimes sends
extremely critical complaints and bug mail).

He was also instrumental in developing BSG's Lisp course (along with
BSG, ACW, and myself), and he taught the course one year.  A friend
who took the course found it extremely clear.

At MIT, he also spent a great deal of time experimenting with toy Lisp
implementations and compilers, to compare various strategies and things
like that.  I am not familiar with what this was all about (Moon may
know more).  In fact, since I left MIT in 1979 I have not been very
familiar with what he's been up to.  The biggest thing has been his work
on the Connection Machine, in which he developed ideas about how to find
a clean abstraction that was at once close enough to the level of the
hardware that it could take advantage of the extreme parallelism, yet
close enough to the level of Lisp that it was relatively easy to
understand and program in.  His Master's thesis was on such work.  It
included other things, too, but I haven't read it so I don't know any
more details.

Also at MIT, he worked with Glenn Burke (and someone else?) on a package
of macros and things to make some advanced Lisp features available in
Maclisp.  These included defstruct and defmacro or something like that;
I never used Maclisp at that time so I don't know the details.  They
published a little reference memo as a MAC technical memo.  I think he's
done a bunch of other things like this but I can't remember more than
this.  I've known him for 11 years now and it's hard to think of
everything.  I think he's done other things with Glenn.

Bawden is a mathematician at heart.  His extreme clarity of thought and
presentation, and deep understanding of complex issues, were extremely
helpful in dealing with many of the projects mentioned above.  (At MIT
he got all A's, except for a couple of B's in some humanities courses,
majoring in Math, and he got unsolicited letters of recommendation from
math professors.)  However, he is also an excellent engineer when he
wants to be, which makes him unusual as someone who can appreciate (and
grok and criticise) highly theoretical issues and highly practical
issues both with great skill.  He is a serious system hacker, and was
one of the main people who recently brought up ITS on the DEC 2020 at
the A.I. lab.

The only criterion that I think might give us trouble is "prominent",
"internationally known", etc.  I don't see how to make a case for this
one.  However, while this criterion is good and important, in my opinion
the other criteria and the factors above make Bawden an excellent
choice.

∂19-Mar-86  1118	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	X3J13 list   
Received: from USC-ISIF.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Mar 86  11:17:35 PST
Date: 19 Mar 1986 10:58-PST
Sender: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Subject: X3J13 list
From: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
To: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: Mathis@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF.ARPA]19-Mar-86 10:58:22.MATHIS>

A note of further explanation about the mailing list for X3J13
information.  As we progress on the standard, we will be keeping
everyone in the community informed through the common net mail
address "common-lisp at su-ai" but some people have been writing
and phoning me which gives me the indication that they do not
follow those common mailing lists too closely.  Also we have some
specific people we have mentioned X3J13 to.  I don't want a list
of everybody you can think of, just those few (probably very few)
that you want to definitely make sure get a special note.

-- Bob

∂19-Mar-86  1132	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Proposed Justification Letter    
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Mar 86  11:32:44 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Wed 19 Mar 86 14:32:39-EST
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1986  14:32 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12192006586.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   "Daniel L. Weinreb" <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Cc:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Proposed Justification Letter
In-reply-to: Msg of 19 Mar 1986  13:16-EST from Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW at SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>


Dan,

Thanks for the info on Bawden.  That's just what I wanted to have handy
in case I need it.  Bawden and I interacted very little when I was at
MIT -- I wasn't working on Lisp or Lisp Machines in those days -- and
while I knew that he had worked on a large number of Lisp extensions
that have since found their way into Common Lisp, I wouldn't have been
able to name them with any confidence.  So my positive impression of him
was based almost entirely on his good suggestions during the early days
of Common Lisp design.

-- Scott

∂19-Mar-86  1227	Moon@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Proposed response to Fateman  
Received: from [192.10.41.45] by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Mar 86  12:27:02 PST
Received: from EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 6688; Wed 19-Mar-86 15:26:22-EST
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 86 15:24 EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Subject: Proposed response to Fateman
To: Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
cc: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12191974365.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Message-ID: <860319152404.7.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

Fine.

∂19-Mar-86  1408	DLW@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Proposed response to Fateman   
Received: from [192.10.41.45] by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Mar 86  14:07:37 PST
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 6736; Wed 19-Mar-86 17:07:24-EST
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 86 17:13 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: Proposed response to Fateman
To: Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU, cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12191974365.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Message-ID: <860319171353.9.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

Pardon me, was there a message from Fateman that has to be responded to?
I thought I saw one from Foreraro, and no others.  Am I confused?

∂19-Mar-86  1432	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Proposed response to Fateman
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Mar 86  14:32:35 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Wed 19 Mar 86 17:32:18-EST
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1986  17:32 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12192039315.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   "Daniel L. Weinreb" <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Cc:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Proposed response to Fateman
In-reply-to: Msg of 19 Mar 1986  17:13-EST from Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW at SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>


The message is sent around was from Fateman.  I described it as the
"John Foderaro Memorial Flame" because the Franz people want Foderaro on
the committee, and I believe that this is what Fateman was trying to
maneuver us toward considering (though he didn't go so far as to say
that).  Sorry if the label was confusing.  It was neither from Foderaro,
nor a flame in the usual sense.

-- Scott

∂19-Mar-86  1735	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Damage control    
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Mar 86  17:34:59 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Wed 19 Mar 86 20:35:44-EST
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1986  20:35 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12192072716.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Damage control


OK, I sent Fateman the letter I showed to all of you earlier today (with
a few typo corrections courtesy of RPG).  Maybe that will end it, maybe
not, but in any event we need to get on with the business of these
committees.

-- Scott

∂20-Mar-86  1355	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	[fateman: ANSI stuff]  
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Mar 86  13:55:02 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Thu 20 Mar 86 16:45:22-EST
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1986  16:45 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12192292903.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: [fateman: ANSI stuff]


Just got the following from Fateman.  I sent a reply saying only that
nobody but he and Fritz Kunze had expressed any concern about the makeup
of the committees.  I happened to be talking to Gary Brown at DEC, and
he says that it looks good to him.

Date: Thursday, 20 March 1986  11:37-EST
From: fateman at dali.berkeley.edu (Richard Fateman)
To:   Fahlman
cc:   fateman at dali.berkeley.edu
Re:   ANSI stuff

One of your criteria ....
	...reputation comes from association with the development of
	well-known, widely-used Lisp systems... 
Do you know which Lisp systems are most widely used?
PSL? Zetalisp? NIL? T? S1? Lucid? Spice?  

	Let me emphasize that there are very many people who meet the criteria
	we set, and that we could only pick a few of them.
And that is why you ended up with 2 at MIT? 

Has anyone else voiced any concern?
  Good luck
    Richard

∂20-Mar-86  1356	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	[SQUIRES: Franz]  
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Mar 86  13:55:17 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Thu 20 Mar 86 16:48:12-EST
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1986  16:48 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12192293435.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: [SQUIRES: Franz]


I'll send some thoughts on this in a separate message, to follow
shortly.

-- Scott

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 20 March 1986  00:29-EST
From: Stephen Squires <SQUIRES at IPTO.ARPA>
To:   Fahlman, Ohlander at USC-ISI.ARPA
cc:   Squires at IPTO.ARPA
Re:   Franz

I got a call from Fritz Kunze of Franz Lisp. The essence of his call was
to raise the issue of membership on the Steering and Technical committees.
He made the claim that he expected to have some one from his company on
these committees as a result of discussions he had at the Boston meeting
(not with me). He made the further claim that the part of the community
represented by these interests was being kept out of the proceedings
and that this was having a serious adverse commercial impact on his
company and that this places the credability of the organization at risk.

It appears that he feels very strongly about this and is able to make
claims that at least on the surface raise serious questions. He has a 
model of various members interests that he uses to support his case.

I informed him that I have been observing the committee formation process
and found it to be a very deliberate and reasonable one. I suggested that
he raise this issue directly with group appointed by the community to
establish these committees by netmail.

Please make every effort to deal with this in a positive way.
It is very important that the process converge so that the
committees can get on with the real work needed by the community.
I believe that it is very important for all concerned with the
process of establishing these committees keep in mind that the
goal is to continue the standards process for the good of the
overall community and that outside observers without a deep 
understanding of the technical and political issues could come
to a conclusion that would place the entire process in jeopardy.

This kind of issue is a very sensitive one within DARPA.
Ron Olander and I have first hand knowledge of the care with which
the Lisp System acquistion process was handled for machines.
Now it appears to comming up again for software. Please proceed 
very carefully.

∂20-Mar-86  1409	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Committee membership   
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Mar 86  14:07:41 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Thu 20 Mar 86 17:08:50-EST
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1986  17:08 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12192297194.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Committee membership


Given the objections from Kunze and Fateman, it seems to me that we have
two choices:

1. Decide that we should take Foderaro after all and send out a simple
message saying that we have decided to add him to the technical
committee.  If anyone asks, we make it clear that we are taking him as a
representative of the Franz Lisp community, and not as a representative
of Franz Inc.

2. Hold firm.  Point out to Fritz that nobody ever promised that a Franz
person would be included on the committee; we simply noted their desire
for one.  Point out that the committee members are chosen as individuals
and not as representatives of particular companies, and that if we were
to start including company representatives, Franz Inc would be way down
the list in terms of size, installed base of COMMON lisp systems, or
most any other measure of importance.  Optionally, point out that we
resent his tactics almost as much as he resents ours.

We can probably make option 2 stick if we want to.  It doesn't look like
this is going to spread, and so far nobody has threatened any sort of
legal hassles or formal complaints to ANSI.  But if we tough it out,
this is certain to leave a pocket of bitter, if ineffective, resentment
in the Franz camp.

The arguments against option 1 are that Foderaro doesn't really belong
on the committee on pure merit, and that Fateman would be impossible to
work with.  Also, that if we are seen as giving in to political pressure
from the Franz people, it is liable to cause some other companies to try
the same thing.

My own view is that it would be better to invite Foderaro aboard and get
on with the technical work.  I've got no stomach for this fight, even if
we've got the power to win it and we don't like Kunze's tactics.  If we
take Foderaro, at worst the committee has some dead weight aboard; I
really don't expect other companies to demand admission.  If we keep him
out, we've made enemies for no good reason.

So I vote, somewhat reluctantly, for option 1.

-- Scott

∂20-Mar-86  1436	RPG  	Thoughts on membership  
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA

I believe we ought to proceed with the committee as it is, but agressively
pursue the industry representatives approach (one spokesman per company,
etc). The reason I lobbied for some official title, etc, for such people
was so that the companies not represented on the committee would be able
to say, ``oh, yes, we're on the Royal High Poobah Advisory Committee for
X3J13.''

This latter requirement, PR, is exactly what companies like Franz want to
obtain, and we should give it to them somehow. The PR requirement is
counter to the workings of the committee. We will have to decide many
issues rapidly, and I believe there will be a groundswell of requests to
`fix' warts in Common Lisp, and we don't need n randoms on the committee
just so that PR companies can have 1 more bullet to put on brochures.

			 -rpg-

∂20-Mar-86  1920	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Thoughts on membership      
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Mar 86  19:20:35 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Thu 20 Mar 86 22:21:54-EST
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1986  22:21 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12192354185.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Cc:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Thoughts on membership  
In-reply-to: Msg of 20 Mar 1986  17:36-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


Do you really think that an "Industry Advisory Committee" that has no
more real power than anyone else who gets to flame on the Common Lisp
mailing list will satisfy these people?  It seems to me that if we get
into this business, the following results are likely:

1. A month-long wrangle over exactly what powers this group should have.

2. Everyone named to the committee will feel compelled to express
himself.

3. Once they've taken stands on behalf of their companies they will feel
compelled to fight for them, and to be unhappy when they lose.

4. At the very least they will expect to be listened to and responded
to, creating a large time sink.  There are a hell of a lot of little
two-person software companies out there.

5. Soon we have 100 disgruntled companies to deal with, and not just
one.

I agree that something like your panel of corporate representatives is
probably less of a distraction than having "n randoms on the committee"
for large n, but my suspicion is that this whole thing would go away if
we increased n from 0 to 1.

-- Scott

∂21-Mar-86  0601	DLW@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	Committee membership 
Received: from [192.10.41.45] by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Mar 86  06:01:24 PST
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 7313; Fri 21-Mar-86 09:01:25-EST
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 86 09:08 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: Committee membership
To: Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU, cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12192297194.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Message-ID: <860321090858.5.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

I agree with Gabriel that Franz, Inc. wants the PR value of having a
Franz person on the committee.  I also agree with all of your comments
about an Industry Advisory Committee, particularly since there would be
no justification for keeping out any of the 100 little companies out
there.  (And I can tell you certain individuals who would end up on such
a committee who I really would not want to have to listen to and answer
to!)  I also think that Fateman would not be satisfied with this,
anyway, since such a committee would still be second-class compared to
the real technical committee itself.  So I don't think the industry
advisory committee is a good idea.

I've said before that I have no objections to Fodorero being on the
technical committee, and I agree with you that one extra person, even if
he's a random, would be preferable to a long fight.

Unfortunately, I also agree with you that if we are seen as giving in to
political pressure from Franz, it is liable to cause some other
companies to try the same thing.  This is the point that I am the most
concerned with.  We discussed putting Fodorero on the committee, knowing
that exactly this kind of thing was reasonably likely to happen, and we
decided against putting him on the committee.  Whether or not this was
the best decision, it was made and the result was announced.  If we had
wanted to avoid a fight from Fateman, we could have done it without the
"precedent" problem by having put Fodorero on the committee in the first
place.  If we put him on retroactively, we run a real risk of inviting
further pressure.  It's going to be clear to the rest of the world what
happened, even if we keep very quiet, and even if they manage to keep
from gloating where other people can hear; it would simply be too
apparent what such an additional appointment to the committee would
mean.

So in my mind, it hinges on whether we expect other companies to demand
admission.  You say that you don't expect it.  However, recall how much
discussion there was, at the Boston meeting, of representation for every
company.

Here's a slightly different way to look at it.  You say you want to
avoid fights, and get on with the real work, and I agree completely.  If
we now announce that Fodorero is on the committee, we will be telling
the world that the committee composition is NOT a decided, finalized
thing, but rather something that is still being modified and is subject
to change.  So instead of real work, we'll be in a "keep deciding who's
on the committee" mode for an indefinite period, with no well-defined
milestone point at which committee membership is decided and real work
can begin.  In a way, I'm afraid that by avoiding this short-term fight,
we'd be letting ourselves in for a much more troublesome longer-term
fight.

I, too, hate to "make enemies for no good reason".  But you can't put
all of the blame for the creation of an "enemy" relationship on us.
After all, we do not seem to have made enemies at Apollo or TI
particularly.  Who is rightfully to blame for setting up a conflict?

So I vote, somewhat reluctantly and with all due respect, for option 2.

-- Dan

∂21-Mar-86  0611	DLW@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	[SQUIRES: Franz]
Received: from [192.10.41.45] by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Mar 86  06:11:01 PST
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by ALLEGHENY.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 7315; Fri 21-Mar-86 09:11:02-EST
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 86 09:18 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: [SQUIRES: Franz]
To: Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU, cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12192293435.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Message-ID: <860321091836.6.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

A few more comments on Kunze:

    I got a call from Fritz Kunze of Franz Lisp. The essence of his call was
    to raise the issue of membership on the Steering and Technical committees.
    He made the claim that he expected to have some one from his company on
    these committees as a result of discussions he had at the Boston meeting
    (not with me). 

He might have expected anything, but I'm sure that none of us would have
tried to hint to him that someone from Franz, Inc would be on the
committee.  At the time of the meeting, we all knew that we did NOT yet
what the composition of the committee wold be, and we all knew that not
every company would have one of its employees chosen.  There is no
justification for this statement on Kunze's part. 
		   
		   He made the further claim that the part of the community
    represented by these interests was being kept out of the proceedings
    and that this was having a serious adverse commercial impact on his
    company and that this places the credability of the organization at risk.

Any company with a Lisp implementation could make precisely the same
claim with the same validity.  Fateman would probably argue that their
claim is "more valid" since it appears to be Fateman's contention (and
has been for years) that Franz Lisp has more users than any other Lisp
implementation and is therefore special.  (I wonder if he's counted all
of the various IBM-PC Lisps, and I wonder if he has some particular way
of knowing how many individuals at a given Unix site actually use Franz
Lisp at all, or with any frequency and skill.)  Given that we cannot
have an employee of every Lisp-implementing company on the committee,
this claim has no weight.

    It appears that he feels very strongly about this and is able to make
    claims that at least on the surface raise serious questions. He has a 
    model of various members interests that he uses to support his case.

It might be interesting to know what this model is.

∂21-Mar-86  0713	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	Re: Committee membership    
Received: from USC-ISIF.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Mar 86  07:13:24 PST
Date: 21 Mar 1986 07:12-PST
Sender: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Subject: Re: Committee membership
From: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
To: Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Cc: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF.ARPA]21-Mar-86 07:12:47.MATHIS>
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12192297194.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>

First, the technical committee does need to get into the doing
something mode.  As a kind of side note, Dick said he thought
this mailing list would cease being used when the committees
started functioning, but notice how much we have been
corresponding on cl-iso.

Second, I don't know these people and companies as well as you,
but has Franz made a commitment to Common Lisp?  It may be a fine
point, but we do not have to take in all variants of Lisp at this
point.  That may come up again with the X3J13 committee, but not
now.

Third, I talked to Kunze in Boston and later on the phone.  I
encouraged their interest in the standardization effort, but also
tried to be very clear that I was not making any commitments
about membership and in fact that no individual on the committee
could speak for the committee until such time as this had been
resolved.  Steve Coles from Gould also expressed considerable
interest, but has not raised any objection to the current
membership.  The same for Carl Hewitt, who might have been
expected to object.


Fourth, I don't like either option.  They both seem to have a
winner-loser character.  We need a mutual face saving approach.
With hind sight, we might have put them on to save ourselves from
this discussion.  What about an approach along the following
lines:

we put Foderaro on the technical committee mailing list without
any public announcement of that fact at this time, Franz group
agrees not to make any big deal about it, then in a couple of
weeks we put out a message on operating procedures for
considering technical issues and name the committee again with
Foderaro included.  [ in the grand sprit of newspeek, if all
agree, we could just act like his name was on the list from the
beginning ]

If Kunze, Fateman and Foderaro agree to something like this, OK,
it shows they are interested in results, not politics; if not,
tell them they have to wait until the official organizational
meetings of X3J13.

-- Bob

∂21-Mar-86  0738	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Membership   
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Mar 86  07:38:39 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Fri 21 Mar 86 10:37:01-EST
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1986  10:36 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12192487942.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Membership


OK, Weinreb and Gabriel have persuaded me that it would be a mistake to
re-open the membership decision process in response to pressure of this
kind.  So for now I am content to make no changes in the committee and
see what happens; if serious guerilla warfare starts, we may still want
to surrender rather than fight, but with luck we can just let the whole
thing fade away.  So I switch my vote to 2, reserving the right to
chicken out later if the going gets tough.

The "good luck" at the end of Fateman's last message sounded sarcastic
and bitter, but also like he wasn't planning to pursue this further.
Kunze has probably played all his cards, unless he wants to start a REAL
fight with lawyers and stuff, which I doubt.  He may continue to harass
some of us (the powerful ones, in his view) over the phone, but we've
sketched out a reasonable response to the points he raised with Squires,
I think.

I just saw Bob Mathis's note on all this.  I agree that we should think
about face-saving gestures, but I don't favor either a formal panel of
company representatives or Bob's plan to sneak Foderaro onto the
committee in some sort of second-class way.  The latter would just
enrage these guys further, I think, just when they seem to be about to
let it drop.

Let me suggest that we take two steps that might make everyone not on
the committee feel better.  First, we should stop using company
identifications when talking about the technical and steering committee
members.  These people were chosen as individuals, not as
representatives of their companies.  We should agree among ourselves
that this membeship will not be used in advertising by our respective
companies.  It is OK for companies to say that such and so a person is
"one of the original designers of the Common Lisp language", or words to
that effect.

Second, we should take a poll, on the Clisp mailing list, of all the
companies that are "participating" (or that have people participating)
in the Common Lisp design discussions.  The prestense for this could be
to gather a list of contact people and their addresses for formal X3J13
announcements, or whatever.  The real reason for doing this is that when
the poll has been completed, we send out a long list that says "People
from the following companies are currently participating in the Common
Lisp design process..." and then they have their name on the official
list and a bullet for their brochures if that's what they are really
after.  But it doesn't create a new class of people who think that they
get to vote on things.

-- Scott

∂21-Mar-86  1041	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	Membership 
Received: from GODOT.THINK.COM by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Mar 86  10:41:13 PST
Received: from yon by GODOT.THINK.COM via CHAOS; Fri, 21 Mar 86 13:41:35 est
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 86 13:43 EST
From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
Subject: Membership
To: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12192487942.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Message-Id: <860321134327.7.GLS@THINK-YON.ARPA>

It would indeed be nice to find a face-saving way out for everyone
concerned.  One option not yet discussed is for us to decide "Gee, maybe
having two people from MIT was not a good idea, and Bawden wasn't all
that enthusiastic anyway, so let's replace Bawden with Foderaro."
Another possibility (a variation of the "newspeek" [sic] method) would
be to announce "Oops, we made a mistake in the last announcement;
through an EMACS slip we accidentally deleted the line with Foderaro's
name on it"; but that would be rather transparent to everyone else.  I
point these out only for the sake of completeness.

I am not enthusiastic about putting Foderaro on the committee for the
following reason: if he were not associated with Franz, Inc. there would
be little reason to put him on the committee.  He has no academic track
record (such as significant published papers).  He made a few
contributions to the Common Lisp effort, but they were not substantial.
I will keep my opinions about his design ability (as opposed to
implementation ability), as evidenced by Franz Lisp, to myself.  Look at
it this way:  if Foderaro last week had started to work for DEC or TI or
HP or Stanford or whatever, but still on a Common Lisp effort, there
would be little case for including him on the technical committee.  (The
same remarks apply to Fateman, with the qualification that he does have
an outstanding academic track record in areas other than Lisp design.)
Foderaro is essentially a junior person in the Lisp world; any argument
for including him that does not involve his connection with Franz, Inc.
would also argue for the inclusion of, say, various PSL implementors
from Utah (or, for that matter, Lispers at DEC, TI, or even DG).  I'm
not trying to tear anyone down or build anyone up, but people are what
they are, and this is my best assessment of the technical abilities and
records of the people involved.  Each of the existing committee members
has the property that he would deserve to be on the committee no matter
what institution he worked for.  This, I submit, is really what we mean
by "world-class".

I would be willing to make a phone call to Fateman or Kunze and make
this point (gently and politely, but firmly).

I think that Scott is right that we should avoid using company
identifications in the future.  Maybe it was a mistake to include them
in the announcement, but then again not, because it was important to
show that (except for MIT) no two came from the same place, and there
was some balance of representation.

Scott's suggestion that the fact of technical committee membership not
be used for advertising purposes may be politic at this point.  If we so
agree, I suggest that we not announce it blaringly to the world, but
perhaps pass the word quietly to Kunze.

    Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1986  10:36 EST
    From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>

    Second, we should take a poll, on the Clisp mailing list, of all the
    companies that are "participating" (or that have people participating)
    in the Common Lisp design discussions.  The prestense for this could be
    to gather a list of contact people and their addresses for formal X3J13
    announcements, or whatever.  The real reason for doing this is that when
    the poll has been completed, we send out a long list that says "People
    from the following companies are currently participating in the Common
    Lisp design process..." and then they have their name on the official
    list and a bullet for their brochures if that's what they are really
    after.  But it doesn't create a new class of people who think that they
    get to vote on things.

This is a fine idea, but we don't have to regard it along ourselves as a
nefarious pretense.  Both purposes are valid.  Let us indeed gather a
list of contacts as such, and then make the announcement of
participation as Scott suggests.  A third purpose might be to GC the
COMMON-LISP mailing list, if RPG cares to do so.

Finally, we might consider indicating to Fateman that the technical
committee we have chosen is, after all, only an interim committee until
X3J13 cranks up, and there is in some sense nothing that this technical
committee can do that cannot be undone once X3J13 forms.  Even if we
don't say it to Fateman, we should be aware of it ourselves.  X3J13
could collectively choose to throw the technical committee members out
on their ears when the time comes, so it behooves us to do a good job.

--Guy

∂21-Mar-86  1427	RPG  	Multiple, Trivial Points
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA

Because the recent messages are concerning the work of the 
Ad Hoc Technical-Committee-Selection Committee, CL-ISO is the
appropriate list, especially when one of the topics is jettisoning
a selected member in order to include someone else.

I am willing and happy to declare that Lucid will not use the fact
of my membership on Common Lisp committees in advertising or other
PR materials.

I think gathering an official list of participating companies is an
excellent idea. There are probably companies other than the ones on the
Common Lisp mailing list that we should contact (like Cray, CDC, etc). The
Common Lisp mailing list contains 126 entries, but approximately 20 of
those are expanded at other sites to distribution lists and like things.
The amount of mail on the list guarantees that it is self-GCing - people
who do not want the mail and system administrators of machines with
inactive recipients whose mail files are exploding regularly remove
entries.

I believe that either Fahlman should send a note to Fateman/Kunze
or Steele should phone them with the relevant comments as suggested
on this list earlier. In the meantime, I think that the Technical committee
should get on with it, making a list of decided ambiguities, setting up
files for tentative decisions, and making a list of possible areas for
discussions for new topics.

Finally, we should, perhaps, outline a strategy for how to proceed with
decisions. For example, we could 

	(loop
	 (when (done) (return))
	 air an issue on COMMON-LISP, 
	 watch the results, 
	 discuss things among ourselves,
	 and then summarize onto COMMON-LISP)

			-rpg-

∂21-Mar-86  1821	squires@ipto.ARPA 	Re: [SQUIRES: Franz] 
Received: from IPTO.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Mar 86  18:17:25 PST
Received: by ipto.ARPA (4.12/4.7)
	id AA29701; Fri, 21 Mar 86 21:15:55 est
Date: Fri 21 Mar 86 21:15:49-EST
From: Stephen Squires <SQUIRES@IPTO.ARPA>
Subject: Re: [SQUIRES: Franz]
To: DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA
Cc: SQUIRES@IPTO.ARPA, cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-Id: <VAX-MM(171)+TOPSLIB(113) 21-Mar-86 21:15:49.IPTO.ARPA>
In-Reply-To: Message from "Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>" of Fri, 21 Mar 86 09:18 EST

Your interpretation of my message is essentially along the same lines
as my response to his claims. He seemed unwilling (or unable) to back
the claims up with evidence to support them. In fact, there appears
to be specific examples that some of the claims are over stated or
stated out of context. The model that he used had to do with Lucid
representatives which he sees as his main competitor and which
he counts both Gabriel and Falhman as representing.

The idea of having a list of "recognized Common Lisp" implementations
from various companies with a technical point of contact identified
may be an effective way to accomplish some related objectives.
Among these are (1) recognition to companies and key people that
are contributing to the Common Lisp transtion process λ, (2)
publication of the progress that has been made toward achieving
acceptance of Common Lisp, and (3) some indication of things planned
in the future. This might take the form of a Common Lisp newsletter
(electronic and paper) with the first issue dealing with some of the
background, reporting on the Boston meeting, reporting on the
committees, providing the list of companies and people, and
discussing futures. One point to make about the list of implementations
is that these are not yet validated but based on some reasonable
criteria (perhaps a statement from the company that they believe
that they are reasonably close, and intend to support the standard)
and that they will participate in the validation process and bring
their product into conformance and aggree to the Common Lisp 
name policy.

I view the discussion that has occured on the net as reasonable and
constructive attempt to deal with the issues raised. I also believe
that the ad hoc committee agreed to by the Community at the Boston
meeting has gone through a careful process to establish the committees
required to do an effective job at getting on with the real business
of dealing with language revisions for the next release of the
reference manual and to support the related standards activities.


I believe that Steele has collected much of the information about
various implementations. A more formal version of this process
could be started by the Steering Committee through a letter
(perhaps on "official Common Lisp letterhead) that asks for
the needed information to be provided in an "official" way
by the company with a designation of their technical point
of contact(s?). This would provide both recognition that
some of these companies want, and provide the Common Lisp
Organization a well defined point of contact into the
industry base.

-------

∂21-Mar-86  1844	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	[SQUIRES: Franz]  
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Mar 86  18:44:12 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Fri 21 Mar 86 21:45:20-EST
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1986  21:45 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12192609672.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   Stephen Squires <SQUIRES@IPTO.ARPA>
Cc:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: [SQUIRES: Franz]
In-reply-to: Msg of 21 Mar 1986  21:15-EST from Stephen Squires <SQUIRES at IPTO.ARPA>


Collecting a list of companies with implementations is useful, but more
limited than what I suggested.  I think we also want to recognize
companies that are participating in the design process because they are
potential users or tool suppliers or because theya re working on a
Common Lisp internally but don't want to announce yet (there are several
of the latter).

-- Scott

∂25-Mar-86  0317	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	For the record: an exchange between me and Fateman 
Received: from GODOT.THINK.COM by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Mar 86  03:16:49 PST
Received: from wenceslas by GODOT.THINK.COM via CHAOS; Mon, 24 Mar 86 16:06:29 est
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 86 16:08 EST
From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
Subject: For the record: an exchange between me and Fateman
To: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA
Message-Id: <860324160821.1.GLS@THINK-WENCESLAS.ARPA>

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 86 10:37:29 PST
From: fateman@dali.berkeley.edu (Richard Fateman)
Message-Id: <8603211837.AA17436@dali.berkeley.edu>
To: gls@aquinas.think.com
Subject: Re:  Standardization
Cc: fateman@dali.berkeley.edu, hilfingr@kim.berkeley.edu,
        larus@kim.berkeley.edu

I think we've got to stop talking about Common LISP as a single thing.
Common LISP '84 is more nearly a single thing, and that is just fine.

Some standards committees endorse de facto standards (e.g. the width
of 1/2" mag tape); some other committees create a new synthesis of some sort 
to encourage production of improved technology (e.g. IEEE floating point);
some committees produce revisions every n years of
a ``new'' language (X3J3 ?); some committees produce nothing.

I don't think people would abandon CL because of an expectation of
a new (but similar) language every 10 years. There are, of course
some people using Fortran '66... or Fortran IV.

The only way to keep CL static is to define it as CL'84, or to have
a committee that produces nothing.  In fact, I thought that the principle
behind the standardization effort was exactly that: If we don't have
an ANSI activity, the French will define ISO LISP, and we would see
the US gov't abandon CL.  If we have a non-terminating ANSI activity,
the French will not have any effect.  (Do you think they would call
it France Lisp? ;-)
  
  RJF

P.S., with April 1st coming around, do you think we should prepare a
short text on proposed additions to the language?  Apropos the #; controversy,
how about associating meanings to 
#flame
or perhaps
#-+flame ?
or #:}>=%=  which viewed at 90 degrees could be interpreted as a roaring 20's
 mustachio'd gentleman with slicked hair, and bow tie...

----------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 86 13:32 EST
From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
Subject: Re:  Standardization
To: fateman@dali.berkeley.edu, gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA
Cc: hilfingr@kim.berkeley.edu, larus@kim.berkeley.edu, gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <8603211837.AA17436@dali.berkeley.edu>
Message-Id: <860324133259.7.GLS@THINK-WENCESLAS.ARPA>

    Date: Fri, 21 Mar 86 10:37:29 PST
    From: fateman@dali.berkeley.edu (Richard Fateman)

    I think we've got to stop talking about Common LISP as a single thing.
    Common LISP '84 is more nearly a single thing, and that is just fine.

    Some standards committees endorse de facto standards (e.g. the width
    of 1/2" mag tape); some other committees create a new synthesis of some sort 
    to encourage production of improved technology (e.g. IEEE floating point);
    some committees produce revisions every n years of
    a ``new'' language (X3J3 ?); some committees produce nothing.

    I don't think people would abandon CL because of an expectation of
    a new (but similar) language every 10 years. There are, of course
    some people using Fortran '66... or Fortran IV.

    The only way to keep CL static is to define it as CL'84, or to have
    a committee that produces nothing.  In fact, I thought that the principle
    behind the standardization effort was exactly that: If we don't have
    an ANSI activity, the French will define ISO LISP, and we would see
    the US gov't abandon CL.  If we have a non-terminating ANSI activity,
    the French will not have any effect.  (Do you think they would call
    it France Lisp? ;-)
  
      RJF

    P.S., with April 1st coming around, do you think we should prepare a
    short text on proposed additions to the language?  Apropos the #; controversy,
    how about associating meanings to 
    #flame
    or perhaps
    #-+flame ?
    or #:}>=%=  which viewed at 90 degrees could be interpreted as a roaring 20's
     mustachio'd gentleman with slicked hair, and bow tie...


I think there is an important idea lurking in there, but I have read this
message four times and cannot understand what is the point.  Could you
please rephrase it?
--Guy

----------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 86 10:44:49 PST
From: fateman@dali.berkeley.edu (Richard Fateman)
Message-Id: <8603241844.AA14926@dali.berkeley.edu>
To: gls@AQUINAS.THINK.COM
Subject: Re:  Standardization
Cc: fateman@dali.berkeley.edu

two parts:
You say you are pleased with CLtL.  Justifiably so.  To say that it should
become the standard, or that the standard should be compatible with it,
is a very strong restriction on the activities of the standards committee.
I don't know if you really mean that.
Do you?

I think this is a possibility, but I think a more enlightened view
might be that the standards committee
should have a much broader view, including the definition of a core
language (remember the different color pages??), perhaps the definition
of a programming environment, and perhaps the error handling etc etc
stuff.
I would endorse something like this.  Would you?

A less enlightened but perhaps pragmatic view is that the standards
committee will only waste time and keep foreign committees from
replacing the ad hoc definition-by-implementation by some (poor?)
standard.
I think this is what will happen, given the large amounts of attention
given to silly issues like #; and #!.
I believe you have some standards experience.  Paul Hilfinger and I
have Ada and IEEE floating point experience.  What do you thing?


----
second part: 
  you can compose pictures with leftmost component #.

Regards.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 86 15:56 EST
From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
Subject: Re:  Standardization
To: fateman@dali.berkeley.edu, gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA
Cc: gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <8603241844.AA14926@dali.berkeley.edu>
Message-Id: <860324155649.9.GLS@THINK-WENCESLAS.ARPA>

Here is what I think.  Common Lisp was the result of committee work that was
comparable in time, scale, openness, effort, and participation to what an
ANSI committee would have to do anyway.  A large number of people
representing diverse interests in the Lisp community were involved (yourself
included).  The work was spread over almost three years, with multiple
drafts released for reasonably public comment.  Anyone who cared to could
participate; granted that ARPANET access was essential to effective
participation, but some persons not on the ARPANET did participate (for
example, those at Texas Instruments for a while), and there were no monetary
dues (CMU footing much of the bill for replication of paper), so employees
of tiny companies and even individuals could find it convenient to
participate.  I think it is highly inaccurate to characterize this work as
"definition by implementation".

I don't view the result as cast in concrete.  Indeed, there are many parts
of it that I personally do not like and would rather see changed, but I am
willing to forego many of these issues for the sake of convergence.  On the
other hand, far from advocating acceptance of the 1984 book, I came to the
December meeting armed with a lengthy list of suggested changes, and I would
be surprised if others did not also propose changes.  But it would be
foolish for an ANSI or ISO committee to ignore the great investment of
effort that went into Common Lisp, the result of the collective wisdom of
dozens of Lisp experts, and start over again from scratch.  I say this
because I think the overall structure of the result would be pretty much the
same, resulting from a set of random compromises that everyone dislikes a
little bit but is willing to work with.  Some of the details might differ,
but the details are, after all, easier to change than the overall structure.

You are quite correct that Common Lisp is not a single thing; fear not: two
names will surely come into use as soon as there is a second thing to name.

Everyone realizes that it would be impossible simply to rubber-stamp the
1984 book because it has too many ambiguities and holes.  Some change is
necessary.  In particular the subject of error handling must be addressed,
and object-oriented programming may be useful to standardize on also.
Programming environments and subsets or cores are appropriate topics for the
committee to address.

Compare this with the work of X3J11 (C language): the committee did not
hesitate to make radical changes where they were clearly called for or where
various implementations differed wildly.  This includes the syntax and
signedness of integer constants and the syntax for declaring functions.  On
the other hand, they did not synthesize a generally C-like language from
scratch.  They started with an existing document that was widely accepted
(though recognized as faulty) and realized that public acceptance of a new C
standard depended in part on not deviating from the existing widely accepted
document without good cause.  While I served on that committee, any
discussion of a major deviation from K&R was invariably accompanied by an
explicit discussion of how to state clearly and precisely the reasons for
recommending the deviation.

I am certain that no one on the technical committee has the purpose of
simply stonewalling with the current Common Lisp definition against either
other US interests or Lisp experts in other countries.  Fahlman, Gabriel,
and I, in particular, have been working hard to interest people outside the
US in contributing to the ANSI effort and to negotiate ways in which, for
example, the Common Lisp and Eulisp communities can cooperate.

--Guy

∂25-Mar-86  0957	gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA 	[fateman@dali.berkeley.edu: Re:  Standardization]  
Received: from AQUINAS.THINK.COM by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Mar 86  09:57:33 PST
Received: from THINK-KATHERINE.ARPA by THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 17261; Tue 25-Mar-86 13:00:04-EST
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 86 12:59 EST
From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
Subject: [fateman@dali.berkeley.edu: Re:  Standardization]
To: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA
Message-ID: <860325125943.5.GLS@THINK-KATHERINE.ARPA>

Here is the latest reply from Fateman.  As I read it, he is apparently
feeling about the whole thing; maybe he at last believes that the
technical committee is not going to try simply to railroad the 1984 book
through with absolutely no changes.

--Guy


Date: Mon, 24 Mar 86 13:33:00 PST
From: fateman@dali.berkeley.edu (Richard Fateman)

	From gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA Mon Mar 24 12:57:43 1986
Thanks for your response.  I didn't mean to impugn your motives, but I think
that the result of the Common LISP effort to date, interesting and useful
as it is, is just a prelude to what is required for a standard.

I hope the language standards committees are not as contentious as
the floating point;  if they are, the effort simply could not terminate
in our lifetimes.

A standard is defined in terms of "shall", "will", "may", "must" etc.
We fell short of saying these things because of the need for readable
material. And also because we disagreed and didn't want to say so,
sometimes.

That any language definition is further refined by implementation
seems inevitable. That is not a bad thing.

I also agree that to start out with a clean slate would be a mistake.
	
	I am certain that no one on the technical committee has the purpose of
	simply stonewalling with the current Common Lisp definition against 
	either other US interests or Lisp experts in other countries.
	Fahlman, Gabriel, and I, in particular, have been working hard 
	to interest people outside the US in contributing to the ANSI 
	effort and to negotiate ways in which, for
	example, the Common Lisp and Eulisp communities can cooperate.
I think this is fine;  I did, however, hear Mathis' argument for ANSI
as "If you don't do it, someone else will, and the US gov't believes
in standards."  This carried the day, in my opinion.

Best of luck, in any case.

  RJF
	

∂26-Mar-86  0933	RPG   	Varia        
 ∂22-Mar-86  0648	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Varia        
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Mar 86  06:48:01 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Sat 22 Mar 86 09:49:22-EST
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1986  09:49 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12192741479.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Varia    
In-reply-to: Msg of 22 Mar 1986  01:03-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


Dick,

OK, thanks.  I'm going to be in Germany and out of effective netmail
contact from April 1 - 9.  Awkward timing -- lots of stuff starting to
move right now.  Anyway, it would be great if I could get a hardcopy of
your manual before I leave so that I can do some editing while stuck in
airports and such, but it's not really mandatory.  When I get back, I've
got a paper to get off that may clobber most of the next two weeks, but
can probably get things rolling to the extent that people won't give up
on the whole process.

Is the manual written in Scribe or TeX or something else?  I've been
meaning for a long time to switch my text hacking over to some version
of TeX, and this may be the time, since it seems to be more widespread
than Scribe (thanks to Unilogic).  If there's a tidbit of source file
that you could zap me before SAIL goes under, that would be of interest,
but again not essential.

This is all psychological.  If I can make everyone believe that we are
making progress, we will make progress.  Seeing a manual take shape is a
good way to create that image.

-- Scott

∂26-Mar-86  0934	RPG   	Varia        
 ∂22-Mar-86  0652	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Varia        
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Mar 86  06:49:22 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Sat 22 Mar 86 09:50:45-EST
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1986  09:50 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12192741731.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Varia    
In-reply-to: Msg of 22 Mar 1986  01:03-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>


BTW, I'm not sure there's any point in reporting on the December meeting
now.  Anyone who wants to know what happened has already asked someone.
Might be best to use your time for other things.

-- Scott

∂10-Apr-86  1937	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	[franz!fisi!fkunze: common lisp technical committee membership]
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Apr 86  19:37:35 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Thu 10 Apr 86 22:38:08-EST
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1986  22:38 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12197862158.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: [franz!fisi!fkunze: common lisp technical committee membership]


I thought that the Franz people had finally given up, but apparently not.
I have sent Kunze a preliminary answer, which I will forward to the rest
of you, and will answer him more fully over the weekend.  As we
discussed, I'll point out that a committee with representation from
every company is infeasible, and will also mention the plans to make a
list of "participating" companies (with technical committee members not
stressing their company affiliations).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Monday, 7 April 1986  13:32-EST
From: franz!fisi!fkunze at kim.berkeley.edu (Fritz Kunze)
To:   at su-ai.arpa:FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU, ucbkim!USC-ISIF.ARPA!MATHIS,             ucbvax!squires@usc-isi.arpa
Re:   common lisp steering and technical committee membership

						April 7, 1986
To: Steven Squires
    Scott Fahlman
    Robert Mathis

This letter is a formal response to the recent proposal for
setting up the Common Lisp Steering and Technical committees.

We at Franz Inc. feel that the treatment of commercial 
interests in standardization is a very critical issue.

Franz Inc. currently has 6 announced contracts with computer 
vendors for implementations of Extended Common Lisp.
Other contracts are not yet public, and additional ones
are under negotiation.

Thus we represent a potentially large percentage of the Common Lisp 
community. We are not represented on either the steering or technical 
committees, although we have made every effort to be on them.

We note that Richard Gabriel, president of Lucid Inc, a company 
whose sole product is an implementation of Common Lisp, is to be 
on both the steering and technical committee.  Scott Fahlman's name 
has also appeared as associated with Lucid (e.g. on slides 
presented by Richard Gabriel at a Sun Sales Show).

This has the effect of looking like an endorsement, by DARPA, or
ANSI, of Lucid.  I will be happy to provide you with ample evidence 
where perceived relationships/and or appearances have severely hurt 
us commercially, especially in competition with Lucid. 

We think it is imperative to correct this. We think the membership of
the technical committee should be broadened, and the steering committee
should be narrowed.  The technical committee should include
representatives --essentially all of whom are at finger-tip's distance
by electronic mail-- from all interested parties.  Similarly, the steering
committee should not have any taint of commercial partiality.

While companies which primarily sell hardware or have broadly
diversified products can afford to ignore these details, competing
companies which focus on satisfying the needs of DARPA, DoD, and research
and education communities should be nurtured. We fear the
effect of the committee membership will be to provide
implied exclusive approval of one vendor as an OEM supplier of
Common LISP.

We sincerely hope that a remedy to this situation can be found soon.

Regards,
Fritz Kunze
President, Franz Inc.

∂10-Apr-86  1939	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	[Fahlman: common lisp steering and technical committee membership]  
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Apr 86  19:39:07 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Thu 10 Apr 86 22:39:54-EST
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1986  22:39 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12197862489.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: [Fahlman: common lisp steering and technical committee membership]


Date: Thursday, 10 April 1986  22:29-EST
From: Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman>
To:   franz!fisi!fkunze at λkim.berkeley.edu (Fritz Kunze)λ
cc:   mathis at USC-ISIF.ARPA, squires at USC-ISI.ARPA, fahlman
Re:   common lisp steering and technical committee membership

I've been out of town and off the net for the last week, and am only now
digging through the netmail that piled up in the meantime.  I just
wanted to let you know that I take your concerns seriously.  I'll answer
your mail more fully as soon as I can, probably over the weekend.  Right
now I'm too jet lagged to deal with such a sensitive issue.  Of course,
my view on this is just that of one individual.  There won't be any
formal mechanism for dealing with such questions until X3J13 has been
formed under ANSI.  But in the meantime we want to be as sensitive as
possible to the kinds of concerns you raise, consistent with the central
goal of quickly preparing a proposed specification that is acceptable
to the community.

Since you offer it, I would indeed be interested in seeing your evidence
(or a summary of it) that the perceptions caused by the current
membership of the technical and steering committees have hurt your
business in its competition with Lucid.  There are a lot of issues here
that are difficult to sort out, and being able to talk about the
specifics, as you and your potential customers perceive them, might help
us to work out an acceptable solution.  For example, there's the
question of whether some customer is going with Lucid because they feel
that Dick Gabriel and other Lucid people have had more to do with the
definition of Common Lisp (so far) than anyone from your company; that's
not quite the same thing as choosing Lucid because they have someone on a
particular committee and you don't.  But if the committee memberships
per se are distorting the market then we should think about how to fix
this.

Of course, you shouldn't show me anything that you consider
confidential.  I wouldn't pass such things to Lucid, since my allegience
to the Common Lisp standardization effort is much stronger than my minor
connection with Lucid, but I wouldn't want there to be any grounds for
suspicion, and I suppose that this knowledge could somehow influence the
kind of advice that I give to Lucid on those occasions when I consult
for them.

-- Scott Fahlman

∂13-Apr-86  1437	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Technical and Steering Committees
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Apr 86  14:36:55 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Sun 13 Apr 86 17:36:36-EST
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1986  17:36 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12198593697.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   franz!fisi!fkunze@λkim.berkeley.edu (Fritz Kunze)λ
Cc:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA, fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Technical and Steering Committees


Dear Mr. Kunze:

This message is my own personal response to the issues raised in your
netmail of Arpil 7.  Squires and Mathis may have differing views, as may
the others who were involved in selecting the technical and steering
committees.  All are CC'ed on this message, via the CL-ISO mailing list.

First, a small point about my own relationship with Lucid: I am listed
as one of the founders of Lucid and an occasional consultant to them,
and I hold a small amount of stock in that company, but I certainly
don't feel that Lucid is my primary affiliation.  I work for CMU, and
there are at least three other companies from whom I have received more
income than from from Lucid in the past few years, counting the Lucid
stock at the most recent investors' price.  I think that it is clear to
anyone who has been following the Common Lisp activities closely that I
have been willing to help EVERY company, including competitors of Lucid,
with their Common Lisp activities by making the CMU code freely
available.  I know that this code has been used at at Intermetrics and
at Berkeley, though I don't know whether you company has received a
copy.  And I can't think of any circumstances in which my association
with Lucid would affect any decisions I might make as a member of the
technical committee.  (I do plan to make sure that any changes do not
hurt Common Lisp implementations on "stock hardware", but that is
important to a great many companies, including yours.)

So I don't really think that the case can be made that Lucid has two
representatives on the committee while other companies have none.  If I
felt that I would step aside, as Weinreb did, or more likely sever my
remaining ties with Lucid, but at the moment I feel no conflict of
interest here, and with the exception of people at Franz Inc., there
have been no complaints.

I grant you that I have a certain reputation within the Common Lisp
community and that Lucid benefits from this reputation, but I don't
think that my membership on the curent technical committee is a very
large component of this reputation; if I were not on the committee, I
would still be one of the original designers of Common Lisp, a frequent
participant in the design discussions, and the source of a public-domain
implementation that is widely used by other implementors.  Similarly, I
don't think that Gabriel's committee memberships are very important to
his reputation in Common Lisp circles.  Membership on the committee
could serve to enhance the reputation of someone who is relatively
unknown in the Common Lisp world, but for those of us who have been
visible in Common Lisp circles all along it does not add any significant
"competitive advantage".

Second, let me give you my view of the formal status of all this.  It
should be clear that these committees are not the creation of DARPA
(except that Steve Squires was one of the seven people involved in
setting them up) or of ANSI.  What they are right now is a couple of ad
hoc committees set up by a bunch of people who happen to be prominent in
one way or another in the Common Lisp world, with the encouragement and
consent of almost everyone who happened to be present at the meeting in
Boston last December.  When X3J13 is set up, its membership will be open
to anyone who wants to join and is willing to participate.  At that
time, this ad hoc group will perhaps propose that X3J13 give them some
sort of official standing and/or that X3J13 consider the language spec
that the technical committee has developed.  Of course, if the community
as a whole feels that the committee has not done good work or that it is
biased somehow, then this will be rejected, so it behooves us to operate
in as reasonable a way as we can.  None of these bootstrapping (or "who
decides who is to decide") issues would come up if we were to wait for
the official ANSI machinery to set up these committees, but that would
waste a year; with luck and hard work, we can be almost done by then.

Let me give you my view of why we chose to set up the committees the way
we did.  First, is it really necessary to have a relatively small
technical committee making decisions on what goes into the spec?  I
think it is.  There are hundreds of people reading the Common Lisp
mailing list, and over a hundred people who have contributed at one time
or another.  There are quite a few newcomers to the process who do not
have the context of past discussions, and a lot of people with little
experience in Lisp.  So far, thankfully, the number of total losers who
want to comment has not been enough to poison the debate, but we could
go over that threshold at any time.

In a comunity of that size, you just cannot decide everything by
consensus.  Some issues settle right away, but others generate lengthy
debates.  There comes a time when someone has to point out that only 10%
of the people are one one side of an issue, that their arguments have
not persuaded the others, that they don't represent an essential
interest within the community (e.g. a big company ready to walk out),
and that the issue has been decided against them.  In preparing the
Steele book, Steele had the ultimate power over what went in, which
power he shared with the so-called "gang of five".  Since the book came
out, we've been drifting for lack of any real moderator or decision
process.

What we are proposing, then is that a few of us (the new technical
committee) take over this function of preparing a new spec and deciding
what goes into it, after everything is debated on the mailing list.  As
far as those of us writing the spec are concerned, concensus within the
technical committee is enough to close the debate on an issue, once
everyone has had a chance for a fair hearing.  Since consensus among at
least this small group is required, the committee cannot be too large.
Since this is an ad hoc group, its decisions carry no formal weight; in
principle, someone else could write a different spec and propose it to
X3J13.  The only thing that makes our technical committee special is the
reputation of the people on it.

So we felt that having a small technical committee of some sort was
essential.  It is still a small, largely self-selected group, but at
least it is more representative than having all of the power in the
hands of a single individual writing a book.

Now, if there is to be a technical committee, how do we decide who is on
it?  I can think of only the following models:

1. Anyone who wants to be on the committee can be.  But this is the same
as the Common Lisp mailing list we already have -- fine for debate and
large-scale decisions, but no good for detailed decision making.

2. Every company that wants a representative on the committee gets one
and has an equal vote (with maybe some additional seats available for
academics and others not tied to companies).  My guess is that we'd have
about 200 companies involved in this case, most of them tiny.  Still too
large for detailed decision making, and the decision process would be
more rancorous because the people involved would be there to represent
their own company's interests and not the good of the language as a
whole.  Bosses would be asking these people why they hadn't made any
waves.

3. Like 2, but only the N largest companies get to participate.  Now
we've got a real mess: How do you decide which companies are the
largest?  Total sales?  Total sales of Common Lisp software?  Number of
installed Common Lisp systems?  Number of installed Lisp systems,
including non-Common Lisps like Franz and Interlisp?  Do we count the
potential of products not yet sold or announced?  Do we represent big
users as well as big suppliers?  How do you count a huge company like GM
that uses Lisp only in minor ways against, say, Carnegie Group that
depends critically on Lisp and sells it products to huge companies?  Who
does the accounting and, since it is a big, contentious job, who pays
him and his lawyers?  And what is the proper value of N?  (While I
haven't seen any figures, my guess would be that Franz Inc would not be
in the top 10 by most ways of counting, so N had better be quite large
from your point of view. if it is, then we get back into large-scale
effects, but with a nasty new element of corporate interest injected
explicitly into the process.)

4. Somebody does the best job they can of picking a smallish committee,
whose individuals are supposed to represent the whole community and not
the interests of specific companies.  That's what we have now, though
you might disagree with the quality of our specific selections or the
constitution of the group that did the selecting.  I think that we can
at least claim that every member of the technical committee we selected
would have been a plausible choice regardless of his employer, and that
the people we have selected from companies have demonstrated an interest
in Common Lisp that goes beyond their own companies' specific concerns.

5. Like 4, we start with a small hand-picked committee, but if some
specific company is unhappy with the result and demands representation,
we add their representative to the committee.  This is totally unstable,
of course: the first time we do this in a visible way, every other
company sees that they are being out-complained and starts lobbying for
their own representative.  We end up with situation 1 or 2 above, or 3
if we decide to yield only to the most powerful complainers.

So, which of these models are you proposing for the enlarged technical
committee?  Or is there some other model?  There may be some good answer
in here that we all missed, but it sounds like you're pushing
for 5, which then becomes 2, which kills the whole process.

Assuming that we don't change the technical committee, there still might
be some steps we could take to eliminate or reduce the sort of outside
perception that you say is causing you trouble.  Here are three steps
that we could consider:

1. All members of the technical and steering committees agree that they
are there as individuals and not as representatives of their companies.
In any future communications, we would try to refrain from listing
organizations with the committee members.  We get the members to agree
that their company will not use the fact of their committee membership
in any sort of advertising or presentations to customers.  (Companies
would still be free to say things like "Joe Blow was one of the original
designers of Common Lisp", to the extent that they can do this with a
straight face.)

2. We take a survey on the Common Lisp mailing list to determine what
companies are out there and are following the debate closely.  We then
publish this list of companies that are "participating in the design and
standardization of Common Lisp".  We need to do this nayway for ANSI,
and companies on this list would then have a bullet for their brochures.
These two steps taken together would be an honest reflection of our view
that the design takes place mostly in the mailing list debates, and not
in the final decision process of the technical committee.  I suppose we
might also try to make a list of the individuals involved, like the one
at the start of the Steele book, but this would be huge by now.

3. The steering committee really has three parts: Mathis, Squires, and
Ohlander, who will do the actual political work; McCarthy, who provides
clout, perspective, legitimacy, and an excellent set of connections
throughout the Lisp world; and Steele and Gabriel who are meant to serve
as representatives of the technical committee at any steering committee
meetings.  These were the obvious two people to handle this liaison:
Steele wrote the book, and Gabriel has been doing most of the steering
so far, in the sense of organizing meetings and the like.  I think that
your concern over Gabriel's dual membership is a bit silly, but if it
really made a difference in how people perceive all this, we could
probably cut the steering committee back to the first four, and say that
the technical committee will send representatives to any steering
committee meetings to provide technical input.  Those representatives
might well be Steele and Gabriel, but we're discussing perceptions here,
not substance.  Would that make a difference?

If you have any other suggestions of this sort, I'd be happy to listen
and pass them along to the others for consideration.  Given the capacity
of this community for endless debate, we thought it best to make some
decisions and then be firm about them.  Endless public debate about who
gets to decide things under what circumstances would just make everyone
mad, we thought.  As it is, we seem to have satsified everyone except
you people at Franz, and your concern seems to be mostly one of how
outsiders might perceive all this, not one of whether the committee will
make good decisions.  Without evidence that the committee memberships
per se (as opposed to people's pre-exisitng reputations) are causing you
real harm, I don't think that it would be appropriate to add a Franz
person to the technical committee now (or to delete a Lucid person), but
if there are ways of reducing the PR problem this causes for your firm,
we should seriously consider those ways.

-- Scott

∂14-Apr-86  0727	DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA 	Technical and Steering Committees, re-mailed    
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Apr 86  07:27:34 PST
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 462641; Mon 14-Apr-86 10:01:40-EST
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 86 10:02  EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: Technical and Steering Committees, re-mailed
To: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 13 Apr 86 18:25 EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <860414100226.5.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

    Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1986  17:36 EST
    From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
							       (Companies
    would still be free to say things like "Joe Blow was one of the original
    designers of Common Lisp", to the extent that they can do this with a
    straight face.)

As a matter of fact, at a recent academic conference I attended, there
was a side-show with vendors, and I overheard a T.I. salesperson say,
quote, "T.I. is the leader in setting the standards for Common Lisp."
I don't think this has any immediate consequences for the committees,
but you should be aware that some people have very straight faces indeed.

∂14-Apr-86  0817	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Technical and Steering Committees, re-mailed    
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Apr 86  08:17:35 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 14 Apr 86 11:16:42-EST
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1986  11:16 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12198786654.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   "Daniel L. Weinreb" <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Cc:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Technical and Steering Committees, re-mailed
In-reply-to: Msg of Mon 14 Apr 86 10:02  EST from Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW at SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>


It's a reasonable heuristic to assume that everything a sales/marketing
person says at a trade show is a lie until proven otherwise.  It's not
that they are bad people, it's just that they have no idea what is
really going on, and when they make up something it tends to be wildly
self-serving. 

By the way, that's one reason I'm a little afraid of any promise that
the marketing types won't advertise these committee memberships -- who
among us can really control what those guys say?

-- Scott

∂20-Apr-86  1612	RPG   	Re: Chairman 
 ∂20-Apr-86  1244	squires@ipto.ARPA 	Re: Chairman    
Received: from IPTO.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Apr 86  12:43:56 PST
Received: by ipto.ARPA (4.12/4.7)
	id AA22409; Sun, 20 Apr 86 15:45:02 est
Date: Sun 20 Apr 86 15:44:56-EST
From: Stephen Squires <SQUIRES@IPTO.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Chairman 
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: SQUIRES@IPTO.ARPA
Message-Id: <VAX-MM(187)+TOPSLIB(118) 20-Apr-86 15:44:56.IPTO.ARPA>
In-Reply-To: Message from "Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>" of 20 Apr 86  1001 PST

I would like to second nomination of Bob Mathis as chairman of the Steering
Committee. This has the additional feature of someone who is clearly neutral
with respect to various issues, and would provide the appropriate kind of
connection the the various bodies with which the community needs to interact.

To facilitate the workings of the Steering Committee, I would like to suggest
that consideration be given to creating the possition of executive chair. 
The person in this position would be responsible for more of the internal
operations of the Steering Committee and be the recognized interface to the 
Technical Committee. As things get more organized, I expect  that activities
will be moving at a rapid pace. We need to have clear and high bandwith 
channels of communication among people with the time and expertise.

-------

∂21-Apr-86  0812	MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA 	Fahlman message to Kunze 13 April
Received: from USC-ISIF.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Apr 86  08:11:53 PST
Date: 21 Apr 1986 08:14-PST
Sender: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Subject: Fahlman message to Kunze 13 April
From: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
To: cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: Mathis@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF.ARPA]21-Apr-86 08:14:21.MATHIS>

I agree with what Scott said in his message to Fritz Kunze on 13
April.  If any of you think I should tell that to Kunze, let me
know, but I think Fahlman's message was enough.

I try not to draw too many parallels with Ada, but there is a
relevant one here.  Data General, ROLM, TeleSoft, Rational, and
other companies have made substantial commitments to Ada.
TeleSoft's and Rational's total business is Ada oriented.  But
none of these named companies have members on the Ada Language
Issues committee (the parallel to our technical committee).
Alsys on the other hand has four members, not all of whom worked
for Alsys at the time of their selection, and who were of
sufficient standing in the Ada community to continue their
membership even after changing companies.  I have yet to hear any
comments to the effect that decisions were being made based on
any companies' particular strategies.

-- Bob

∂21-Apr-86  0823	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	Fahlman message to Kunze 13 April
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 21 Apr 86  08:22:06 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 21 Apr 86 11:24:40-EST
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1986  11:24 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12200623127.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
Cc:   cl-iso@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Fahlman message to Kunze 13 April
In-reply-to: Msg of 21 Apr 1986  11:14-EST from MATHIS at USC-ISIF.ARPA


Thanks for your support on this.  I think it is best not to send
anything more to Kunze at this time, especially if it is just to state
support for opinions already expressed.  If they come back and say, "OK,
we've heard from Fahlman, now what about the rest of you?", then it
would be appropriate to indicate that we're in agreement on this.  I'm
hoping that they will decide this is going nowhere, that they're alone
in their unhappiness with the process, and that it is time to move on to
more productive pursuits.  For now, it's best just wait and see what
they do and not encourage them to keep the debate alive.

My guess is that the next act of this play unfolds when X3J13 is formed.
They will try to make their point there, as is appropriate.  I'm hoping
we will have made a lot of progress by then.  (More on the topic of
progress later...)

-- Scott