Proposed Message regarding X3J13 Membership

[Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>]

This looks good.  The basic thing I (still) don't understand is the
interaction between ANSI and ISO, and I think some of the receipients of
the message, especially those who were not at the Boston meeting, will
also be confused.  Is this an ANSI standard or an ISO standard?  Do you
need to have international members on an ANSI committee?  Etc.

"the votes of these individuals" possibly should be "the comments of..."
or something, just to make it clear that they're not voting.

We might want to reiterate the statement that we intend for debate and
deliberation to be open, so that people not on the committee can still
present points, just as it has always been on the mailing list.  Or do
you actually want to limit discussion to the formal liasons, in which
case the question of "who gets to be a liason" becomes even more
critical?  What about world-class experts who do not represent any
particular implementation (suppose Bawden were not on the committee; his
comments would be just as helpful).

Nitpicking: I think Rees's first name is spelled "Jonathan".  Also, I
don't usually hear Bobrow called "Dan".  In general I think it might be
better to use full formal names, for appropriate tone.  (By the way, is
the Steele on the technical committee the father of the one on the
steering comittee?)