perm filename CLCHRT.MSG[COM,LSP]3 blob sn#781411 filedate 1984-12-28 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	Introduction
C00005 ENDMK
C⊗;
Introduction
Welcome to the Common Lisp Charter Subgroup.
In order to mail to this group, send to the address:

		CL-Charter@su-ai.arpa

Capitalization is not necessary, and if you are directly on the ARPANET,
you can nickname SU-AI.ARPA as SAIL. An archive of messages is kept on
SAIL in the file:

			   CLCHRT.MSG[COM,LSP]

You can read this file or FTP it away without logging in to SAIL.

To communicate with the moderator, send to the address:

		CL-Charter-request@su-ai.arpa

Here is a list of the people who are currently on the mailing list:

Person			Affiliation	Net Address

Gary Brown		DEC		gbrown@dec-marlboro
Martin Griss		HP		griss.hplabs@csnet-relay (I hope)
Joe Ginder		PERQ		Joseph.Ginder@cmu-cs-spice
Dick Gabriel		Stanford/Lucid	rpg@sail
Steve Ford		TI		Ford.ti-csl@csnet-relay
Carl Hewitt		MIT		Hewitt-charter@mc
Mark Hatch		Apollo		hatch@aerospace
Dan Weinreb		Symbolics	DLW@scrc-stonybrook
Rick Hudson		UMass		hudson.umass-cs@csnet-relay
Govind Deshpande	JPL		deshpande@jpl-vlsi.arpa
Beau Sheil		Xerox		sheil@xerox

The first order of business is for each of us to ask people we know who may
be interested in this subgroup if they would like to be added to this list.

Next, we ought to consider who might wish to be the chairman of this subgroup.
Before this happens, I think we ought to wait until the list is more nearly
complete. 

∂23-Sep-84  1637	RPG  	Introduction  
To:   cl-charter@SU-AI.ARPA 
Welcome to the Common Lisp Charter Subgroup.
In order to mail to this group, send to the address:

		CL-Charter@su-ai.arpa

Capitalization is not necessary, and if you are directly on the ARPANET,
you can nickname SU-AI.ARPA as SAIL. An archive of messages is kept on
SAIL in the file:

			   CLCHRT.MSG[COM,LSP]

You can read this file or FTP it away without logging in to SAIL.

To communicate with the moderator, send to the address:

		CL-Charter-request@su-ai.arpa

Here is a list of the people who are currently on the mailing list:

Person			Affiliation	Net Address

Gary Brown		DEC		gbrown@dec-marlboro
Martin Griss		HP		griss.hplabs@csnet-relay (I hope)
Joe Ginder		PERQ		Joseph.Ginder@cmu-cs-spice
Dick Gabriel		Stanford/Lucid	rpg@sail
Steve Ford		TI		Ford.ti-csl@csnet-relay
Carl Hewitt		MIT		Hewitt-charter@mc
Mark Hatch		Apollo		hatch@aerospace
Dan Weinreb		Symbolics	DLW@scrc-stonybrook
Rick Hudson		UMass		hudson.umass-cs@csnet-relay
Govind Deshpande	JPL		deshpande@jpl-vlsi.arpa
Beau Sheil		Xerox		sheil@xerox

The first order of business is for each of us to ask people we know who may
be interested in this subgroup if they would like to be added to this list.

Next, we ought to consider who might wish to be the chairman of this subgroup.
Before this happens, I think we ought to wait until the list is more nearly
complete. 

∂02-Oct-84  1319	RPG  	Chairman 
To:   cl-charter@SU-AI.ARPA 
Now that we've basically got most everyone who is interested on the mailing
list, let's pick a chairman. I suggest that people volunteer for chairman.

The duties are to keep the discussion going, to gather proposals and review
them, and to otherwise administer the needs of the mailing list. I will
retain the duties of maintaining the list itself and the archives, but
otherwise the chairman will be running the show. 

Any takers?
			-rpg-

∂12-Oct-84  1151	FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA 	An idea
Received: from CMU-CS-C.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Oct 84  11:51:45 PDT
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>; Fri 12 Oct 84 14:35:46-EDT
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 1984  14:35 EDT
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12054894948.BABYL@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
Sender: FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
To:   cl-charter@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: An idea


Raj Reddy suggested an idea that may or may not be what we want to do,
but is certainly worth thinking about: instead of setting up yet anotehr
non-profit organization to protect our common interests in Common Lisp,
perhaps AAAI would be willing and able to handle this.  The Common Lisp
organization could be set up as a subcommittee or some such.

On the plus side, they are already incorporated and widely recognized,
have some financial and administrative resources that could help to
grease the wheels, and they certainly would help to promote the
user-oriented perspective that some people have found lacking in our
effort to date.  A stable and coherent Common Lisp would certainly help
to promote AI, which is their reason for existing.

On the negative side, it could be argued that Common Lisp and AAAI do
not have identical interests.  Common Lisp is a general purpose
language, not just for AI, and there are plenty of people who believe
that AI in the future will be done in Prolog or in some other dialect of
Lisp.  Also, there might be a problem with tying Common Lisp to a
strictly American organization.  And, of course, AAAI might not want to
touch a politically charged situation like this with a ten-foot pole.

I think that from our side the advantges probably outweigh the
disadvantages, and maybe we should explore this with the current AAAI
management.  Opinions?

-- Scott

∂13-Oct-84  1448	RPG  	Chairman 
To:   cl-charter@SU-AI.ARPA 

No one has been nominated as chairman of the Charter subgroup.  I will
need either a volunteer or a nomination.  Please respond by October 24. At
the end of this month I want to see some ideas and proposals coming in on
this mailing list.

			-rpg-

∂13-Oct-84  1740	FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA 	Chairman    
Received: from CMU-CS-C.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 13 Oct 84  17:40:02 PDT
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>; Sat 13 Oct 84 20:40:49-EDT
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 1984  20:40 EDT
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12055223548.BABYL@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
Sender: FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
To:   cl-charter@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Chairman


I am interested in the political future of this effort and would be
happy to serve as the chairman of the Charter subcommittee.  I am
currently acting as chairman of the interim executive committee (a.k.a.
the Gang of Five), so I would be glad to step aside if some other
well-qualified candidate steps forward for this.  (By "well qualified",
I mean well-connected to the ARPANET and interested enough to be active
in this role.)  But if nobody else wants this post, I'll do it, since this
particular problem HAS to be solved successfully.

-- Scott

∂27-Oct-84  2156	RPG  	Hello folks   
To:   cl-charter@SU-AI.ARPA 

We now have a chairman of the charter:  Scott Fahlman
of CMU.  I think he will make an excellent chairman.  For your
information I am including the current members of the mailing list.

I will now let Scott take over responsibility for the discussion.

Scott Fahlman		CMU		Fahlman@cmuc
Dave Matthews		HP		"hpfclp!charter%hplabs"@csnet-relay
John Foderaro		Berkeley	jkf@ucbmike.arpa
Gary Brown		DEC		brown@dec-huson
Richard Fateman		Berekely	fateman@berkeley
Martin Griss		HP		griss.hplabs@csnet-relay (I hope)
Joe Ginder		PERQ		Joseph.Ginder@cmu-cs-spice
Dick Gabriel		Stanford/Lucid	rpg@sail
Steve Ford		TI		Ford.ti-csl@csnet-relay
Carl Hewitt		MIT		Hewitt-charter@mc
Mark Hatch		Apollo		hatch@aerospace
Dan Weinreb		Symbolics	DLW@scrc-stonybrook
Rick Hudson		UMass		hudson.umass-cs@csnet-relay
Govind Deshpande	JPL		deshpande@jpl-vlsi.arpa
Beau Sheil		Xerox		sheil@xerox
Neal Feinberg		Symbolics	feinberg@scrc-stony-brook

∂18-Nov-84  1907	FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA 	Getting started  
Received: from CMU-CS-C.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Nov 84  19:06:49 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>; Sun 18 Nov 84 22:05:44-EST
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 1984  22:05 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12064687113.BABYL@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
Sender: FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
To:   cl-charter@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Getting started


I guess we had better begin discussing what sort of charter or
organization we want to set up for future control of Common Lisp.  In
fact, I'm already a little late ins ending this out.  Here are some
issues on which I would like to hear your opinions:

1. Do we really need some formal, legal organization to control the
formal definition of Common Lisp, or can we just muddle along as we
have been?

2. If we need a formal organization, what functions should it perform?
A partial list might be: maintain and distribute the "official" langauge
definition and validation suite, be the legal owner of any trademarks or
copyrights that pertain to the language, resolve questions that arise
about the spec, actually perform the valiadations, maintain and
distribute any public-domain libraries or implementor's kits, publish
some sort of newsletter.  Any additions to this list?  Any deletions?

3. Would we be better off setting this up as a separate non-profit
corporation (with all the administrative overhead that this implies), or
is there some existing organization that could handle this.  I pased
along Raj Reddy's suggestion that AAAI might do this.  Should we
investigate that?  Are there other candidates?

4. How would the necessary administrative services be paid for?  DAPRA
has expressed a willingness to provide seed money for Common Lisp
standardization, if necessary, but not to pay for this standardization
forever.  This won't cost much and the companies benefitting from Common
Lisp standardization would probably be willing to pay, but what would be
a fair method of taxation.

5. Here's the hard one: Who has the final say on language-definition
issues?  In most cases, these things can be settled by debate,
compromise, and consensus, but it's important to know what the ultimate
authority is.  Who gets a vote?  How do we divide the power between big
companies, small companies, universities, DOD, random individuals, major
contributors to the original design, users, and so on?  Who, if anyone,
has a veto?  Should this change over time as Common Lisp goes from a
good idea to a widely-used language in which many companies have a major
economic interest?

6. Related to issue 5: Once we know who has ultimate authority, how
should we handle the day-to-day decision-making, both for technical
issues and for administrative issues?  Should we try for a truly
democratic system, or should there be a few elected representatives with
authority to make decisions, subject to review?  Or should we continue
the practice of leaving most decisions to the self-selected group of
people who care enough to participate actively?

Remember: in the end it matters less whether Common Lisp is good
(meaning just the way you want it to be) than that it is standardized
and widely used.  That's where the leverage and the value comes from.
All of you on this mailing list have an interest in these issues, and
many of you represent companies that have a major interest in the
emergence of Common Lisp as a widely-accepted and stable standard.
Please contribute your ideas.  All of us on the "ad hoc interim
executive committee" want to see this language succeed, but at least
some of us are looking forward to retirement (from this role) once the
language is in good hands.

-- Scott

∂26-Nov-84  1804	FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA 	Hello? 
Received: from CMU-CS-C.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Nov 84  18:04:36 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>; Mon 26 Nov 84 21:03:49-EST
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 1984  21:03 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12066772996.BABYL@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
Sender: FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
To:   cl-charter@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Hello?


There has been *no* response to my message asking for input on the
general shape of a charter.  Is anyone out there?  Have I asked all the
wrong questions?  Or are these issues just too complex to get started
on?  If I hear nothing more, I'll start work on a proposal matching *MY*
view of how things should work, but I thought that at least a few of you
would like to express some ideas before we get down to debugging a
specific proposal.

At least pop up and say hello, so that I'll know the mailing list is
working.

Your obedient chaircreature,
Scott

∂27-Nov-84  0604	FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA 	[fateman%ucbdali: Hello?]  
Received: from CMU-CS-C.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Nov 84  06:04:02 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>; Tue 27 Nov 84 09:03:18-EST
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 1984  09:03 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12066903975.BABYL@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
Sender: FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
To:   cl-charter@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: [fateman%ucbdali: Hello?]


If I read the following correctly, Fateman believes that there is no
point in trying to set up a standards organization for Common Lisp until
(a) we change the name to something over which we have legal control
(with a year-number in it) and (b) someone settles the issue of
delivery-oriented subsets.  Opinions?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Monday, 26 November 1984  22:52-EST
From: fateman%ucbdali at Berkeley (Richard Fateman)
To:   Fahlman
Re:   Hello?

yeah, the mailing list works.  Any of us who have been involved
in standardization are undoubtedly sour on the idea.  I have already
voiced my objection to the name Common Lisp, which has, in my opinion,
been applied to so many deficient implementations, that the name
has a bogus ring to it.  I vote we start a CL-85 specification,
and encourage DARPA to come up with a Strategic Computing CL-85
specification for a subset strategy.  
You may forward this.

∂27-Nov-84  1028	RPG  	Charters 
To:   cl-charter@SU-AI.ARPA 
1. I'm not sure I'm ready to see a formal, legal organization take
over Common Lisp yet. I would be persuadable if there were adequate
checks and balances against random changes. Let me give an example. As you
all know, Rod Brooks and I put together a critique of Common Lisp. In it
we presented some possible criticisms of Common Lisp. The paper was
meant to stimulate thought about the resulting Common Lisp design and
about the design process. I believe that there are people who would take
that paper as a bible and proceed to implement an aggressive subset
strategy, perhaps as a means of making their old stand-by Lisp system
the `real' common Lisp. I would be the first one at the parapets to
fight against that, and perhaps Brooks would be the second. 

Therefore, I want to pursue a conservative strategy in which the current
Common Lisp committee and the members of this subgroup create a strong
document outlining how the language changes and under which circumstances
subsets are allowed  to be called `Common Lisp subsets.'

2. I believe Common Lisp will only succeed if there are excellent
implementations of it. If there are to be public-domain implementor's
kits, I want them to be high quality. I have not seen any Lisp
implementor's kit that I believe satisfies my standards. In order to
get such a kit, I think serious money will need to be thrown at the problem.

I think that one of the Universities - Stanford or CMU - could be funded
to maintain the validation suite.  I think that such an organization is the
perfect place for this role.

On the question of calling a spade a spade, why not get together a minimal
fund or assurances of free advertising which can be used to publish
notices from the Common Lisp watchdog committee about non-Common Lisps.
The idea would be this: The constitution of the CL watchdog committee would
specifiy procedures for confronting a suspected CL bootlegger. The bootlegger
would get an opportunity to explain his plans for getting a real CL together,
or else he would explain in what ways his Lisp is a subset. If he is moving
with due dilligence towards conforming, nothing would happen, except a pat
on the back and the offer of a shoulder to cry on. If the answers are
unsatisfactory, then the watchdog group would simply put an ad in the
AI magazine, SIGART, The Wall Street Journal, etc. stating: Warning,
Megabucks Inc's Lisp is not a common Lisp, it is just Lisp 1.5 with arrays.

3. Lisp's affiliation with AI is touching, but I'm not sure I would want
an AI organization as the watchdog over CL. Especially AAAI. Do you remember
the last Lisp conference? AAAI gave us many assurances that AAAI would not
overlap the Lisp conference. AAAI started their session on tuesday morning,
I believe. They avoided overlapping by having their opening session on
thursday morning. (As an aside, as chairman of the next Lisp conference,
I considered two alternatives: 1) the Lisp conference could hold its
closing ceremonies immediately after the opening ceremonies or 2)
the Lisp conference could be separate. I chose the latter).

Perhaps a non-profit corporation could be set up to do it to help pay for
administrative matters, but, again, I would not support it until there
was a strong CL constitution.

4. I think that the government and the companies should pay for the
adminstration of the CL watchdog. 

5. I think that the CL constitution ought to state the CL design
principles.  For example, the constitution ought to state that CL is a
lexical, multiple-value, etc. Lisp. Then, there ought to be procedures for
undoing those decisions, but doing that ought to be very hard. The minor
points - like EQL instead of EQ for CATCH tags - can be left up to the normal
functions of the watchdog group.

I am, frankly, worried about the power politics involved in all of this.
I know it might sound silly, but I tend to want to model the organization
of the CL world after organization of the US government, *but* only to
the extent of the idealization of a constitutional republic. 

Let me illustrate my concerns.  We could easily posit that companies would
get representation proportional to their size, the size of their
investments, or the percentage of their capital devoted to Common Lisp
activities.

Under any of these schemes, some group would get an unfair amount of
power. Under the first scheme, IBM probably (or Futjitsu) gets the most,
under the second, probably TI gets it, and under the third Lucid gets it.
Now I don't mind other people calling shots, but I do mind if one those
groups, say Lucid, called the shots and it was fundamentally wedged in its
judgement on some point.  How could that group be prevented from forcing
its will on the rest of us? A strong statement of what must remain in CL,
at least in principle, would go a long ways towards that. A second way to
go a long way is to have a distinguished panel of Lisp wizards as a court
of appeal or advice.

6. I don't advocate democracy, and my model reflects that.

			-rpg-

∂27-Nov-84  2012	fateman%ucbdali@Berkeley 	Re:  Charters 
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Nov 84  20:12:48 PST
Received: from ucbdali.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.39)
	id AA06317; Tue, 27 Nov 84 20:13:50 pst
Received: by ucbdali.ARPA (4.24/4.39)
	id AA28002; Tue, 27 Nov 84 20:12:18 pst
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 84 20:12:18 pst
From: fateman%ucbdali@Berkeley (Richard Fateman)
Message-Id: <8411280412.AA28002@ucbdali.ARPA>
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA, cl-charter@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Re:  Charters

I think the SIGSAM Bulletin might be an appropriate forum for CL activity
(Symbolic and Algebraic Manipulation); though its circulation is not
as large as SIGART.
As the current chairman of SIGSAM, I would encourage this.

Certainly the same problems about proportional representation have occurred
in other standardization efforts, and the same solutions might be appropriate.

∂30-Nov-84  1004	hudson%umass-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa 	Some ideas.    
Received: from CSNET-RELAY.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Nov 84  10:03:52 PST
Received: from umass-cs by csnet-relay.csnet id ao06573; 30 Nov 84 12:54 EST
Date:     Thu, 29 Nov 84 15:40 EST
From:     Rick Hudson <hudson%umass-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To:       cl-charter@su-ai.ARPA
Subject:  Some ideas.


Still here and interested in the charter. In response to your questions

1. Only ANSI and ISO can provide real international legal protection.
   The only argument against using them and a formal standardization
   is the large amount of work required. The amount of protection
   we need could come from our own organization. However, if an
   ISO committee is formed to standardize LISP we would  have to   
   join it to protect our interests. One more note of interest -
   whichever country forms the ISO committee holds the chair
   of that committee.
 
2. The list of organizational duties seems good.

3. The answer of which is more expensive, interfaceing with AAAI or
   going it alone isn't apparent to me. We might have to break
   with AAAI sometime in the future. I think we should go it alone.

4. Lets get seed money from DARPA. Once we have a validation suite lets
   charge companies to be validated. If companies are interested in
   Common Lisp enough to get a system running then they should be able
   to pay for the validation.

5. Tough decisions should be made by voting. A committee could be created
   with a one organization/one (or two?) members. Members would be sent
   from each organization. The rules of the charter should make it clear
   that the members vote as individuals not as companies. This will
   protect both the individuals from problems when they return home
   as well as companies from having company policies set at the meetings.
   It also allows individuals to make decisions without having to
   clear it with the home office. I think such an organization could
   stand the test of time. Noone would have a veto.
   
6. From the above body we could elect (assign on a rotating basis, or
   make it a duty of membership) a small panel to deal with the day to day
   administrative issues. The technical issues could be handled by
   self selected individuals. The voting committee in 5 could OK these
   decisions, turn them down or put them back into the self selected 
   committee, I assume that if someone wants an issue back in committee they
   will want to become part of the committee.

One advantage of this type of set up is that it is simple. Most of the
work will be done by the self appointed committee and just Oked 
by the voting group discussed in 5.

Rick

∂30-Nov-84  1719	FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA 	Some ideas. 
Received: from CMU-CS-C.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Nov 84  17:19:40 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>; Fri 30 Nov 84 20:18:21-EST
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 1984  20:18 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12067813293.BABYL@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
Sender: FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
To:   Rick Hudson <hudson%umass-cs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Cc:   cl-charter@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Some ideas.
In-reply-to: Msg of 29 Nov 1984  15:40-EST from Rick Hudson <hudson%umass-cs.csnet at csnet-relay.arpa>


Rick,

Just some reactions to a couple of your comments:

1. I'm not sure what sort of "real international legal protection" you
think ISO and ANSI provides.  Can you elaborate?  Certainly these
organizations lend a certain aura of credibility to any standard, and
credibility is what standards are all about.  On the other hand, I think
most of us have heard enough horror stories about endless, mindless
bureaucracy that we wouldn't touch either of these organizations with
with a ten-foot simple bit-vector.

4. I'm not sure that trying to support this organization through
validation fees is a good idea.  Validation should pay for its own
expenses, but adding a lot of extra cost to the process might deter
companies from getting formal validation.  We don't want a lot of
companies running around saying that their systems are perfect Common
Lisp but that they skipped the formal validation because they couldn't
see paying the extra $30K or whatever.  Besides, it seems unfair to make
the providers of Common Lisp systems shoulder the whole burden while
providers of applications and assorted users get a free ride (but
still want to have a say in the decisions).  I'd be more inclined to
favor a dues system for institutional members, with maybe a couple of
tiers so that little startup companies are not deterred from
participating.

-- Scott

∂04-Dec-84  2223	hudson%umass-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa 	Legal Protection    
Received: from CSNET-RELAY.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Dec 84  22:23:21 PST
Received: from umass-cs by csnet-relay.csnet id aj28943; 5 Dec 84 1:08 EST
Date:     Tue, 4 Dec 84 11:31 EST
From:     Rick Hudson <hudson%umass-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To:       cl-charter@su-ai.ARPA
Subject:  Legal Protection

Scott,

By 'international legal protection' I just meant that if an ISO standard
is ever done we would be best protected if the chair of the
ISO Lisp standards committee were held by the U.S. As far as I know
the only agreements we have with other countries is that if an ISO standard
exists for something then we will not create an ANSI standard for the same
thing. 

I just talked to the chair of the APL standardization
committee and heard war stories that have convinced me not to want
to be involved with ANSI or ISO. 

 Rick
 

∂04-Dec-84  2245	fateman%ucbdali@Berkeley 	Re:  Legal Protection   
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Dec 84  22:45:11 PST
Received: from ucbdali.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.39)
	id AA08609; Tue, 4 Dec 84 22:44:40 pst
Received: by ucbdali.ARPA (4.24/4.39)
	id AA28156; Tue, 4 Dec 84 22:45:12 pst
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 84 22:45:12 pst
From: fateman%ucbdali@Berkeley (Richard Fateman)
Message-Id: <8412050645.AA28156@ucbdali.ARPA>
To: cl-charter@su-ai.ARPA
Subject: Re:  Legal Protection

Say,  Did we ever find out about the Digital Press copyright on the
manual?

∂06-Dec-84  2237	fateman%ucbdali@Berkeley 	CL the copyright   
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Dec 84  22:37:08 PST
Received: from ucbdali.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.39)
	id AA11730; Thu, 6 Dec 84 22:35:46 pst
Received: by ucbdali.ARPA (4.24/4.39)
	id AA26142; Thu, 6 Dec 84 22:36:22 pst
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 84 22:36:22 pst
From: fateman%ucbdali@Berkeley (Richard Fateman)
Message-Id: <8412070636.AA26142@ucbdali.ARPA>
To: steele@cmuc
Subject: CL the copyright
Cc: cl-charter@su-ai.ARPA, ohlander@usc-isi

Has anything happened with this?  In particular, a CL implementation
reference manual for a particular machine would probably benefit from
following the organization of the book (so far as possible), chapter &
verse, stating choices where they were made, providing more specifics
on errors, extensions, etc.
  If Digital Equipment Corp., through its ownership of Digital Press,
were made uniquely able to do this, it would seem unfortunate.
  Is perhaps an earlier version that was GLS copyrighted, more
available?  Is there an on-line copy?

∂07-Dec-84  0652	FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA 	CL the copyright 
Received: from CMU-CS-C.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Dec 84  06:52:17 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>; Fri 7 Dec 84 09:50:15-EST
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 1984  09:50 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12069533951.BABYL@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
Sender: FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
To:   fateman%ucbdali@λBerkeley (Richard Fateman)λ
Cc:   cl-charter@SU-AI.ARPA, ohlander@USC-ISI.ARPA, steele@TL-20B.ARPA
Subject: CL the copyright
In-reply-to: Msg of 7 Dec 1984  01:36-EST from fateman%ucbdali at Berkeley (Richard Fateman)


The last I heard, about a month ago, the people at DARPA (along with
Guy) were negotiating with Digital Press to reclaim the copyright so
that the licensing of online versions, implementation-specific manuals,
etc. would be in more neutral hands.  Digital Press seemed willing to do
something like that as long as they retained some sort of exclusive
rights for publication of the manual in implementation-independent book
form -- they would be giving up a bunch of other rights which they now
have by contract.  DARPA has some legal claim to rights to earlier
versions of the manual, but as long as Digital Press is willing to
cooperate, nobody wants to make it a battle of lawyers.

I haven't heard lately how these negotiations are going, however.

-- Scott

∂10-Dec-84  0557	OHLANDER@USC-ISI.ARPA 	Re: CL the copyright  
Received: from USC-ISI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Dec 84  05:57:46 PST
Date: 10 Dec 1984 08:57-EST
Sender: OHLANDER@USC-ISI.ARPA
Subject: Re: CL the copyright
From: Ohlander
To: fateman%ucbdali@UCB-VAX.ARPA
Cc: steele@CMU-CS-C.ARPA, cl-charter@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <[USC-ISI.ARPA]10-Dec-84 08:57:25.OHLANDER>
In-Reply-To: <8412070636.AA26142@ucbdali.ARPA>

Steve Squires and I have talked to Sam Fuller at DEC about this
issue and I think we have closure.  After Guy Steele had sent a
letter to John Osborne of Digital Press, Sam Fuller got together
the Digital Press people and also explained the problem.  As a
result, there is some tentative agreement that DEC will allow
other companies to reproduce the Common Lisp manual for a
reasonable fee.  In addition they won't have to go through all
this format nonsense.  It was also agreed that DEC would have
commercial rights while the Common Lisp group maintains rights to
the Common Lisp specification.  DEC will also accomodate any
changes in the specification made by the Common Lisp group.  This
has yet to be ratified with John Osborne but I don't think there
will be any major difficulty.

Ron Ohlander

∂19-Dec-84  1906	FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA 	One idea.   
Received: from CMU-CS-C.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 19 Dec 84  19:05:56 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>; Wed 19 Dec 84 22:05:51-EST
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 1984  22:05 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12072813587.BABYL@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
Sender: FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
To:   "Daniel L. Weinreb" <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Cc:   cl-charter@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: One idea.
In-reply-to: Msg of 18 Dec 1984  14:27-EST from Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW at SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>


I agree more or less with Weinreb's suggestion.  It's too late to get
control of the name "Common Lisp", even if this were clearly desirable.
What we can do is come up with some sort of trademark associated with
"Validated Common Lisp 84" or whatever, and protect that carefully.

If we do it this way, companies will be able to use the name "Common
Lisp" meaning that they aspire to produce something that is Common Lisp
compatible, much as companies use variations on the name "Unix" to
indicate what kind of operating system they are providing.  If someone
claims that their product is Common Lisp, it will be fair for the
community and for reviewers to evaluate it on how close it comes to
meeting the spec.  But companies will only be able to sue the trademark
for Validated Common Lisp if they in fact have been officially
validated.

-- Scott

∂26-Dec-84  1533	RPG  	Charter  
To:   cl-charter@SU-AI.ARPA 

After reading Scott's message, which hinted at a potential charter
proposal he may write, I was thinking further about my loathing
of democracies and the possible dangers to Common Lisp if we go for
such a system.

But first, some other comments.

1) Why do we need a non-profit organization that needs ARPANET access?  We
possibly need such an organization to shield us as individuals from
lawsuits.  And I can almost see that we might need such an organization to
provide dollars for travel to meeting places. But why ARPANET access? Will that
organization be manned? (!) And what will the person who mans the organization
do every day? I presume that what we'll need is an organization in a city
where one of the permanently interested Common Lisp people can have a 
post office box and a bank account.

2) We've always dealt with issues by ARPANET before; why can't we do that now?
The number of new accounts that are needed for people who do not now have
ARPANET access is pretty small, and the bulk of the costs of those accounts
can be paid for either by the companies involved or by DARPA for the individuals
involved.

3) Validation could form the basis of a `company,' and for that we should
possibly charge a validation fee, and DARPA can pay for the rest of the
validation activities. Perhaps we could study how ADA is validated (or
not validated) to understand how to win (or how to not lose).

Now on to voting.

When we were doing the original design, we relied on consensus, not on voting.
We voted from time to time, but we accepted the results of the vote as binding
in those cases in which we had agreed by consensus to accept them.  We didn't
trust voting then, and I don't think we should trust it now. We ought to
allow voting for getting the sense of how people feel, and for simple
decisions voting is ok, but for any sort of major decisions I think
we would be nuts to use it.

If companies are paying to send members to a standards meeting, then you
can bet that it will be tough for some people to dissociate themselves from
their companies. It is nice to think that people will be able to put themselves
in the larger context to vote on the issues qua issues, but I'd rather have the 
structure set up to enforce this.

There are two ways I can think of, and they are similar to each other. The first
is a statement of principles, which states exactly what it is that makes
Common Lisp a Common Lisp. In some sense we want that definition to change
is needed, but we want to guarantee that the rate of change will be small for
most of the language. And we want some parts to move very slowly indeed.

The principles would state that Common Lisp is a lexical Lisp and, for example,
that a dynamic Lisp is not to be interpretted as a subset of Common Lisp.
Similarly it would also talk about multiple values, lambda-lists, and the
general principles, which Steele stated in the Common Lisp book.

There would then be a body that would decide for every change made to
Common Lisp whether that change followed the principles. If not, then the
change would not go into effect. This body could also serve an advisory
role with respect to other Common Lisp activities.

The second way is a simplification of this, which is to have an oligarchy.
The members of the oligarchy would be chosen for their `stature' and 
`Lisp wisedom.' A second body would be a suggestion-generator. This second
body would come up with proposals, and the oligarchy would decide what to do.
This is almost the same as the first suggestion, but there is no set of 
principles that form the basis of the decisions made by the oligarchic
body.

On the subject of dues, it might be the case that some small startups cannot
afford, say, $20k right off the bat. These companies might like to offer
services rather than dollars in order to `belong' to the Common Lisp Group.
That is, they could run mailing lists, work on validation suites, or something
until their ship comes in.

			-rpg-

∂27-Dec-84  2023	fateman%ucbdali@Berkeley 	Re:  Charter  
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Dec 84  20:23:10 PST
Received: from ucbdali.ARPA by UCB-VAX.ARPA (4.24/4.40)
	id AA19009; Thu, 27 Dec 84 20:16:11 pst
Received: by ucbdali.ARPA (4.24/4.40)
	id AA07636; Thu, 27 Dec 84 20:24:22 pst
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 84 20:24:22 pst
From: fateman%ucbdali@Berkeley (Richard Fateman)
Message-Id: <8412280424.AA07636@ucbdali.ARPA>
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA, cl-charter@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Re:  Charter

1. I will point out that being rigid on what 
is or is not a common lisp subset is perhaps not to our benefit.

2. Do you want to tackle Gold Hill and Symbolics regarding lexical
scoping?  What about flavors? How about a standard editor? I doubt that any of
us want someone (else) dictating, retroactively, what should be in or out 
of a CL implementation, especially after ours has been released. I'd bet
there would some delicate legal issues, and I would expect that
anyone who cared to make a fuss about a rejection from the CL club
would sue the pants off the organization.

3. It was my impression that the "Strategic Computing"
Common Lisp subset would probably be a subset of several already existing
lisps, including Maclisp and Interlisp.

4. What would happen if we just stopped at this point?  It would be as though
people had a new "lisp 1.5" model on which to base their lisp systems.
This is a good thing:
Just as the lisps between 1959 and (more or less) 1984 could be said to
be based on lisp 1.5 (more or less), the lisps after 1984 could be said
to be based on common lisp (more or less).

5. Should we really go further?
Is there an important role for the CL charter group (or validation group?)
to play in the de-validation of purported common lisps? Or the stomping on
professed non-common lisps (e.g. Maclisp, Interlisp)?  If DARPA has expressed
a need for this service, they should provide specs and offer to pay for
it.  Otherwise, our work here seems to be done!

6. As we continue to muddle around for a while longer while
a few more alleged CL implementations appear, we will be even more likely
to fall into this position.  It might not be a bad situation as I indicated
in paragraph 4.



∂28-Dec-84  0552	FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA 	Charter
Received: from CMU-CS-C.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Dec 84  05:52:06 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>; Fri 28 Dec 84 08:52:41-EST
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 1984  08:52 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12075028504.BABYL@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
Sender: FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
To:   fateman%ucbdali@λBerkeley (Richard Fateman)λ
Cc:   cl-charter@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Charter
In-reply-to: Msg of 27 Dec 1984  23:24-EST from fateman%ucbdali at Berkeley (Richard Fateman)


As tempting as your suggestion is -- I would love to declare a victory
and go home -- I don't think that Common Lisp will solve the problems we
want it to solve if we just let it float free from now on, in the manner
of Lisp 1.5.  While that did give the world a rough idea of what was
meant by the word "Lisp", it also left room for a major schism and
enough chaos in the Lisp world to effectively prevent most people in
industry and government from embracing Lisp as a usable language.
That's what we're trying to get away from.  So we've got to be tighter
than that if Common Lisp is to be "industrial strength".

As for companies getting upset when we finally have a validation suite
for what's in the book and their Lisp doesn't make it, well, they
shouldn't be surprised.  They can probably still call themselves "Common
Lisp", but they just won't be able to claim that they're fully validated
or to sell their systems to people who require that.  If an organization
forms, sets some standards, offers to validate conformance with those
standards, and if other organizations decide to require conformance to
that particular set of standards, I don't see any grounds for a lawsuit
(which is not to say that there won't be any, given the unreasonable
nature of lawyers).

As for Symbolics and Gold Hill, I believe that Symbolics plans to come
into full compliance, including lexical scoping, and that Gold Hill
clearly understands that as long as they are a subset they are not going
to get validated as a full Common Lisp anyway.  My guess is that they
will move to lexical scoping sometime soon -- it's not THAT hard.
Flavors and standard editors and such are not part of the language spec
proper, though they may someday have specs of their own which companies
can meet or reject, as they choose.

-- Scott