Issue: TEST-NOT-IF-NOT (Version 2)

[Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>]

My notes from Fairfax meeting...

Cleanup meeting:

 Ready for vote (or straw vote).

 Pierson says, contrary to what's in writeup, that he endorses it only
 if it's deprecated (rather than removed).

X3J13 meeting:

 Barmar: want ability to express a contingent vote on the letter
         ballot. eg, "Yes, only if FUNCTION-COMPOSITION passes."

 RWK: want ability to to vote contingent on deprecation/removal
      strategy.

 JonL: visible change, low payback.

 van Roggen: Something should definitely be done. eg, some implementations
	     might extend the "is an error" case of both :TEST and :TEST-NOT
	     to use AND or OR to resolve the ambiguity!