Membership

["Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>]

We probably do need to post something very soon.  I'm uncomfortable with
naming Griss before we get his OK -- it limits our options if he
refuses.  Has anyone tried netmail?  He answered some query yesterday.
I'll be happy to give this a try, but didn't want to confuse things with
RPG also trying to make contact.

If Griss turns us down, we'll need to think fast about other options.
Just go with the people we have already suggested?  Nick Gall, now at
BBN I think, has been offering some reasonable opinions of late.  If
we're not afraid of doubling up in a single university (somewhat less
imflammatory than having multiple people from one company), there's
Bawden at MIT and/or Rob Maclachlan at CMU.  Both have their heads
screwed on straight.

Maybe we should think one more time about Foderaro.  Those guys are
going to make trouble if we don't take him, and maybe he's not so bad.
Should we take him and avoid a fight?  If we gets wedged on something,
we can always outvote him.  The risk is that if we let him in just to
avoid a fight, 27 other companies may decide that this is a maneuver
they want to try as well, just so they are not left out.  But maybe it
wouldn't snowball.  Opinions?

I'm not sure how to explain what the proposed technical committee would
be, since the self-selected X3J13 committee, which won't exist till next
fall, presumably has the formal power to appoint such a committee for
real.  Maybe we say that this is the "interim technical committee" that
we seven were authorized to select at the Boston meeting, that these
people will be acting as a committee to come up with a set of
recommendations for the standard, and that we will propose that these
recommendations (and the committee membership?) be ratified by X3J13 once
it exists.

Does someone want to try to cook up the appropriate language for an
announcement and try it on the rest of us.  I'd do it, but I'm
super-busy until Sunday or so.

-- Scott