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

Technical Committee

I counter-propose:

Steele, Gabriel, Moon, Fahlman, Bobrow, Rees, Bawden

Which has the advantages of world-classness and oddness. I further propose
that we firm up exactly how we take input from the community as a whole.
I fear that implementation groups will have decisions made `behind their backs'
because they had a deadline that week. A mechanism that guarantees that
every important group has their say on issues is needed, I think. This should
satisfy not only the Franz folks, but the silent LMI's and TI's of the world.

Let me make this more clear. I believe that the `official' committee must
have the recognized leaders and no others to be able to make a dent on
the international scene. That is why I will not accept political
influence and `pay offs' as a reason to include people. On the other hand,
we need to build into the official decision-making system a way to include
all of the implementors who have jumped on the CL bandwagon. 

On to the rest of Scott's message:

Because the silver book is not acceptable as a user's guide, Lucid has
written its own. This book duplicates the material in the silver book, but
with some thought to making it easier for a user to handle. Furthermore,
all mechanisms and functions are discussed in identifiable sections, not
in bits and pieces throughout, as in the silver book. I suggest that,
at least, the style and format of the Lucid version be studied.

I vote to clean up the type system, but this will mean re-implementation
efforts to most groups. Decisions like this need highest priority.