KMP's proposal

[Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>]

    Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1985  15:46 EDT
    From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>

    Once we've got a proposl that those of us on this list like, we should
    send it to the full Common Lisp list, and if nobody objects then, we can
    take it as a probationary standard, I think.

Remember the mail I sent a while ago, asking what the procedure was for
adding new things to the Common Lisp definition?  This isn't anything
like what I thought the procedure is.  Do you want to call up, say, RPG,
and tell him that he may have THOUGHT that he finished Common Lisp on
schedule, but we just moving the finish line another twenty yards back,
and he'll just have to slip all his schedules, because we just expanded
the definition of what it means to have correctly implemented Common Lisp?
What ever happened to all that talk about the current definition remaining
stable, and a Common Lisp '87 being defined in a few years, and all that
stuff?