[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
(1) This list looks very good to me, except that I would also very much
like to get Bawden involved (maybe if Rees declines?).
(2) I think Griss is overall very competent technically and fairly
reasonable to work with. There are great advantages to having a
representative of HP and of PSL. I don't think Kessler would be nearly
as good for the purposes of this committee.
(3) With respect to DLW, I also think that it is better just to try very
hard to do the right thing the first time than to give any appearance of
playing games. I too hope Dan will continue to be active. Inasmuch as
the committee discussions will probably be mostly open (that is, held on
the net), I think the only effect is that "Symbolics" will have one vote
on the committee instead of two when official votes are taken. In
particular, there is no reason that people who are not official
committee members but nevertheless make important contributions cannot
be appropriately recognized in reports.
(4) I am against trying to create a "subset committee ghetto" before the
fact. Interest in subsets is an important point of view that should be
represented on the main committee. (Furthermore, I think the subset
interests and the full-language interests ought to keep tabs on each
other.) If a certain part of the main committee naturally gravitates
into a corner to work separately on the subset issue, that's another
(5) It would be a nice gesture, if nothing else, to ask McCarthy. Also
it might make the committee much more credible on the international
scene to have the original inventor of the language on its roster. (As
a friend I would then advise him not to waste his time, but he might
really want to be involved. Let him decide.)
(6) Just as a suggestion from left field, what would you think of Robert
"Corky" Cartwright? He has served on the program committee for a Lisp
conference. He's a sharp semi-outsider who is fairly up on theory and,
as far as I can tell, has no axe to grind. (But he may not want to
invest the effort.) Scherlis could serve the same purpose, but then
there would be duplication from CMU. Cartwright would represent a
university outside the MIT/Stanford/CMU triangle.
In summary, I propose:
which makes 11 members (my favorite size) and an alternate choice in
case one declines.