[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Other candidates

I am also strongly opposed to including Hewitt, for the reasons Fahlman
enumerates.  If for no other reason, Hewitt should not be on the
comittee because he is not technically qualified.

Barber might be OK.  I don't know him that well but he has certainly
been spending a lot of time as lead implementor of a Common Lisp
implementation (albeit a subset, I guess), and he certainly seems like
someone we could work with smoothly.

What Fahlman says about Greenblatt is true, and furthermore there is
good reason to belive that he has not mellowed any.  I've spoken to him
over the last year and I've spoken to people who've worked with him, and
apparently he's the same Greenblatt I used to work for.  Stubborness is
one of his key traits.  He would work very poorly in a concensus group.

Regarding Masinter, I'm not sure why having two Xerox people would be
any better than having two Symbolics people.  I also feel he'd be hard
to work with.

I don't know anything about Kessler.

I've only met Fodorero a few times, but he seemed pretty reasonable and
open-minded at those times.  I don't know how to reconcile this with
Gabriel's reports.  With all due respect to Gabriel, he and Fodorero are
associated with companies that are active competitors, and perhaps that
might have made for some friction (but maybe this was all before the
companies).  (You could say the same thing about me and RG, of course,
but I did work with him for years before the LMI/Symbolics split-up.)
I'm not sure how we could get more information on which to base a
decision, given that we feel we have to say something very soon.