Merging of committees

[Larry Masinter <Masinter.PA@Xerox.COM>]

On the subject of the possible merger of the cleanup committee and the
error or compiler committees:

I am very much opposed to merging other committees in with the Cleanup
Committee. Even if there is substantial, or even total, overlap of the
committees (e.g., even if everyone on the Compiler Committee is a member
of the Cleanup Committee), the committees have different charters, sets
of issues, etc. 

If the Error committee needs some help and the compiler committee needs
some new members, we individually can try to help fix those things.

I also am opposed to taking smaller issues which rightfully belong to
those other committees and putting them thru cl-cleanup.

For example, I am opposed to the CLEANUP committee releasing
Ignore-errors. If Kent thinks it is a good idea to get IGNORE-ERRORS
out, then let that be the report and proposal of the Error committee.
Kent can even report that the Cleanup committee likes the idea, but it
should come as a report and recommendation of the error committee. 

I would like to see separate committees (again, even if they
substantially or totally overlap with this one) deal with the issues of
compilation and declarations, the issue of signalling and also the
myriad set of changes where "is an error" might turn into "signals an
error" and where "signals an error" might turn into "signals a FROB
error". 

I'm willing to join the error committee and the compiler committee if
its necessary to help get them off the ground or they seem to lack
critical mass, although I'm not yet convinced that it is necessary.

Larry