[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Date: 30 Dec 85 1127 PST
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Scott's analysis is correct: we must keep the criteria such that
the committee is above reproach.
There is always the reproach that the committee is tightly ingrown; this
is what prompted my suggestion of Cartwright. He is outside the Common
Lisp clique but is aware of Lisp issues in general. He got his degree
at Stanford, and he spent a semester at CMU a couple of years ago (while
I was at Tartan). Scherlis knows him well. Besides having papers in
POPL and TOPLAS, Cartwright had papers in the 1980 Lisp Conference and
the 1982 Lisp Conference, and served on the program committee for the
1984 Lisp conference.
I say all this not because I want to push very hard for him to be on the
committee, but merely to press home the point, for future reference,
that he is a good guy that has been involved with Lisp more than you
might think, just not in the hard-core implementation arena.
As formalists, Rees is not in
the same league as Cartwright, but Rees has done several implementations
of Lisps. He even got Steele's S-1 compiler to really work, a feat only
equaled by myself.
With McCarthy out and Cartwright too, this leaves the committee
which has 9 people, my favorite number.
That's a fine number, too, even though it isn't prime.