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

Committee members

Special-purpose hardware:

These folks are represented by Moon, who is among the very best Lisp
people. LMI has no interest other than commercial that is not represented
by Symbolics.

Stock Hardware:

These folks are represented by me and by Fahlman. Lucid's technical interests
are the same as Franz's. Also, they have no one to offer technically. Recall:
They were the people who gave the world *FRANZ* *LISP*. Griss has always
been a nay-sayer and was only interested in making portable STANDARD Lisp the
COMMON Lisp. It is not evident he did much of the heavy-duty implementation, 


Why do they need representation? Suppose they do; Fahlman represents them.

Groups with other interests, like OOP:

Bobrow represents a new view on OOP. He has long standing and high standing in
the community.

Groups who prefer small computers:

We need these folks to get by the Europeans. Chailloux can do that; so can
Kessler. Kessler also would like to make PSL the Common Lisp subset. It's
hard to tell how much real implementation he's done.


These guys can lend an air of respectability to the cause.

So, how about this:

	Rees   (formalist)

We ought to have more people, I guess. We can buy some credits by easing
DLW off the committee. I might suggest Wegman, but he might be too much to
handle. Also, Wegman would only represent the LISP/VM group and not IBM.
Corporate IBM regards them as out of the mainstream of IBM's Lisp interests.
So why bow towards that group at all?

TI? They have no one.

Gold Hill? They have no one.

Expertelligence? Give me a break.

Tektronix? Are you kidding?

If we leave DLW on the committee, we would have 9.