Re: Committee membership

[MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA]

First, the technical committee does need to get into the doing
something mode.  As a kind of side note, Dick said he thought
this mailing list would cease being used when the committees
started functioning, but notice how much we have been
corresponding on cl-iso.

Second, I don't know these people and companies as well as you,
but has Franz made a commitment to Common Lisp?  It may be a fine
point, but we do not have to take in all variants of Lisp at this
point.  That may come up again with the X3J13 committee, but not
now.

Third, I talked to Kunze in Boston and later on the phone.  I
encouraged their interest in the standardization effort, but also
tried to be very clear that I was not making any commitments
about membership and in fact that no individual on the committee
could speak for the committee until such time as this had been
resolved.  Steve Coles from Gould also expressed considerable
interest, but has not raised any objection to the current
membership.  The same for Carl Hewitt, who might have been
expected to object.


Fourth, I don't like either option.  They both seem to have a
winner-loser character.  We need a mutual face saving approach.
With hind sight, we might have put them on to save ourselves from
this discussion.  What about an approach along the following
lines:

we put Foderaro on the technical committee mailing list without
any public announcement of that fact at this time, Franz group
agrees not to make any big deal about it, then in a couple of
weeks we put out a message on operating procedures for
considering technical issues and name the committee again with
Foderaro included.  [ in the grand sprit of newspeek, if all
agree, we could just act like his name was on the list from the
beginning ]

If Kunze, Fateman and Foderaro agree to something like this, OK,
it shows they are interested in results, not politics; if not,
tell them they have to wait until the official organizational
meetings of X3J13.

-- Bob