COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	Dear Larry:
C00010 ENDMK
C⊗;
Dear Larry:

	We  have  decided to complete the
construction documentation of Foonly even under
the  unfavorable  condition  that  ARPA  may  not  allow  it  to   be
constructed  for  non-technical  reasons.  Our reasons for doing this
are as follows:

	1.  We really want the machine and will take our  chances  on
permission even though they are not too good.

	2. We hope to convince you, once the documentation is complete, that
the machine should be built after all.

	3.  The design aids, which are already being used by DEC  and
MIT will be further proved out by completing the design.

	Admittedly, the machine is not as attractive a proposition as
it would have been had it been  completed  on  any  of  the  previous
schedules.   However, it is still well within the range of completion
times usual for commercial projects.   In  my  opinion,  it  was  not
completed  on time, because the group under-estimated how much work there was
and over-estimated how hard each of them was  willing  to  work.   It
seems  to  me that the miscalculations were inclined to be especially
severe in the logical design (now complete) that  requires  sustained  conceptually
difficult  work.   I  expect that the more routine work of completing
the partitioning, pc-card layout, wire-wrap layout,  and  back  panel
layout  will  go much faster, and I will be interested to see if this
is so.

	Unless the documentation is complete by  May  1,  I  will  stop  the
project  myself, but if it is complete, I will try to persuade you to
let the machine be built for the following reasons:

	1. Even one Foonly will provide a cost-effective increase  in
computing  power  for the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
and for network users.

	2. The new ideas in the Foonly design such  as  time-sharable
user micro-code and the console computer are worth trying out.  In my
opinion, they better tried out in the Foonly context of an  otherwise
conventional  machine  with  plenty of software, consoles, files, and
users than in an isolated machine devoted to a single new concept.

	3. There is an upper bound on the size project  that  can  be
accomplished  by  a  small group unsupported by a large organization.
The Foonly project appears to have been right on the boundary.  Given
the  software  that  the  project has produced and the development of
technology, this size project should be  well  within  the  practical
range  in  the  future.   It  is  important to establish this, and if
Foonly is not completed, there will be a  fear  of  undertaking  such
size projects in the future.

	I  believe  that  Gordon Bell and Alan Kotok will support our
contention that the project is approaching completion, and we  expect
to   have  the  complete  documentation  comprising,  pc-layouts,  wire-wrap
layouts, and back panel wiring ready to be sent out  at  the  end  of
March.

	I hope that when we present this proposition to you, you will
be able to give the matter some of your personal attention.

					Sincerely yours,


					John McCarthy
					Director, Stanford Artificial
Intelligence Laboratory


P.S. There are two factors that have unfortunately militated  against
the project at this time, in my opinion, incorrectly.

	The first is the extremely short time estimate given by Poole
and others at  the  beginning  of  the  task.   This  was  apparently
necessary  to  him  to persuade himself to undertake the project.  In
fact, the project is  not  badly  delayed  by  commercial  standards,
compare ILLIAC 4.

	The  second  is your and Steve's tendency to push the idea of
concentrating computing facilities in a few  centers  used  over  the
network.  In my opinion, there is a tendency to push this idea beyond
its usefulness as a kind of justification of the expense of expanding
the network.


P.P.S. Gordon Bell told me that D.E.C. is seriously considering
contributing to the project the integrated circuits and services that
we had arranged to buy from them.  If I estimate it correctly, this
corresponds to about $66,000 or about 1/3 of the goods and services
that were to be purchased.  I suppose they won't make a final decision
until the processor is ready to be manufactured.

	Gordon also suggested that we use cheaper ICs for the cache
and microprogram memories which would reduce the cost further.  He
said that he hoped that the debugging experience would be written up,
because only IBM and CDC have built pipeline machines, and they haven't
talked.  I hope to be able to accomodate him in this.  He also agreed
to tell you his opinion directly, and I hope he will.


	Since Steve came out to review the project, work has continued
at a pace that leads me to believe that the April 2 date to be ready
for manufacture is realistic.
Details will be supplied on request.
	
	In any case, however, it is not possible to have the machine
all put together by 15 June, so that we hereby decommit this.  I hope
this will satisfy the need for a letter of decommital.