Re: slides for meeting

[sandra%defun@cs.utah.edu (Sandra J Loosemore)]

> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 89 16:35 EDT
> From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
> 
> I think the most important thing to spend time on here, aside from
> building concensus that we ought to review the document, which I don't
> think will be at all difficult, is the review process.  The drafting
> committee has not discussed this at all, at least not recently.  The
> review process adopted in March was not followed (as it was determined
> to be unrealistic).

I agree.  I know that the thing I want to know about is the new
timetable and the process that will be followed to review and actually
decide that the document is ready for external review.  Most people
apparently never received the message that Kathy sent out explaining
that the schedule from the last meeting was being abandoned, and I
expect there will be a lot of questions about what has been happening
in the meantime.  In fact, I would suggest dealing with this at the
very beginning of the presentation instead of saving it for last.

>   1. Faithfulness to the decisions made by X3J13
>   2. Lack of ambiguity
>   3. Lack of technical inconsistency
>   4. Consistency of presentation, typos, grammar, spelling
>   5. Clarity of presentation
>   6. Niceness of Common Lisp as a programming language

This looks reasonable to me.

> The other part of the process is finding a way to get people to
> actually read the stuff, and finding a way to make sure that
> different people read different parts so all of it gets read by
> someone (or several people).  I still don't have any ideas for
> how to accomplish that.

How about bribing some poor graduate students to do it?  :-)

Seriously, I was planning to coerce some other people here at Utah
into helping out with the review.  I talked about it before with Bob
Kessler and he said he was willing to give people independent study
credits for this, which might induce them to work harder on it.

-Sandra
-------