Other candidates

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

    Perhaps we should re-visit these choices:
    	Hewitt
    	Barber
    	Greenblatt
    	Masinter
    	Kessler

OK.  First, let me say that my suggestion that we include Foderaro was
in the context of being able to outvote him if we had to.  A couple of
randoms whose taste we disagree with or whose goals may not match those
of the rest of the community can be tolerated and may even be
beneficial; five or six would poison the process.

I am strongly opposed to including Hewitt.  He has horrible taste in
language design, is not an implementor, and has never contributed
anything to any dialect of Lisp as far as I know.  He is knowledgeable
on parallel symbolic computing issues, but Common Lisp does not do that
(and should not).  If he did anything at all on the committee, it would
probably be to inject great confusion into the object-oriented
programming debate.

Barber I don't know.  He might be OK.  Taking him would eliminte any
pressure to take Hewitt.

Greenblatt is responsible for most of the bad ideas in Lisp Machine
Lisp, along with a few of the good ones.  He certainly qualifies as an
implementor.  I haven't worked with him closely enough to know how he
would react when one of his ideas is shot down by the rest of the group;
my sense is that he would be quite stubborn, but maybe he has mellowed a
bit.  I could live with him if the rest of you think it's a good idea,
but I'm uneasy about this.

I could live with Masinter, but I think there's no point in this.
Bobrow provides us with the Interlisp perspective and with a
representative from Xerox, and is probably a bit easier to get along
with.

Kessler would be OK if Griss says no.  He's totally into his subset
stuff, but I get the sense that he understands the difference between
the goals of a subset and the real langauge.

I agree with Moon.  It's time to settle this and get on to the business
of making some decisions that people can count on.

-- Scott