[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
OK, assuming that this is now a private channel, to the extent that
anything on a network can be...
You have mentioned a couple of times the issue of "getting rid of
Balzer". I can't tell if that is just a whimsical example or if this is
on your list of things we want to do. It is rather amazing how quickly
he was able to insinuate himself into the inner circle.
My own view is that Balzer is a pain in the ass sometimes, but that he's
a fairly astute politician and that having him on the steering committee
-- not the technical committee -- might not be so bad. If the rest of
you disagree, the obvious move would be to get Ohlander on that
committee instead, on the grounds that he is the senior ISI person who
will be most directly involved in the support effort, plus the fact that
he has been involved with Common Lisp for many years. We clearly want
someone from the ISI support organization, and we clearly do not need
two such people.
There are many reasons I'd like to jettison Balzer. First, the CL
community tends to not respect him. I got several complaints about
his CL Framework presentation, similar to the ones about his Monterey
presentation. Second, he has always tried to gain control of the Lisp
community; I know he tried this at the Utah (1980?) and the SRI (1981)
ARPA Lisp meetings. He doesn't give a hoot about technical details, only
his personal power base. Third, his research work has always been a little
on the bogus side. None of the work is his, mostly it's Neil Goldman's.
Fourth, he rubs people the wrong way. Fifth, his political savvy is mostly
centered around his personal situation; he is good at having water roll off
his back and little else. He is incapable of seeing anyone's point of view
except for the point of view of the person in the game with the most power.
I strongly resented him attending our lunch, because he was self-invited.
Fortunately, he spent all his time on the phone.