perm filename MEET.ING[COM,LSP] blob
sn#807416 filedate 1985-12-24 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT ⊗ VALID 00142 PAGES
C REC PAGE DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00019 00002 ∂24-Sep-85 2156 REM%IMSSS.#Pup@SU-SCORE.ARPA Meeting, voting
C00021 00003 ∂25-Sep-85 0743 Feinberg@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Meeting
C00023 00004 ∂25-Sep-85 0805 @ucbdali%UCB-VAX@Berkeley.EDU Re: Meeting
C00027 00005 ∂25-Sep-85 1205 DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Meeting
C00030 00006 ∂25-Sep-85 1223 fateman%ucbdali@Berkeley.EDU "commercial advantage"
C00032 00007 ∂26-Sep-85 0419 hpfclp!roger%hplabs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA Common Lisp meeting
C00035 00008 ∂26-Sep-85 0432 AS%hp-hulk.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA Re: Meeting
C00037 00009 ∂26-Sep-85 0627 brown@DEC-HUDSON CL meeting
C00041 00010 ∂26-Sep-85 1139 fateman%ucbdali@Berkeley.EDU
C00043 00011 ∂30-Sep-85 0657 greek@DEC-HUDSON Common LISP Meeting.
C00046 00012 ∂30-Sep-85 1041 greek@DEC-HUDSON Common LISP Meeting.
C00047 00013 ∂03-Oct-85 1138 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU Common Lisp meeting
C00049 00014 ∂07-Oct-85 1146 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
C00051 00015 ∂07-Oct-85 1307 @MIT-REAGAN.ARPA:Soley@MIT-MC.ARPA
C00054 00016 ∂08-Oct-85 1455 Fischer.pa@Xerox.ARPA Common Lisp meeting
C00055 00017 ∂09-Oct-85 0603 Feinberg@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Common Lisp Meeting
C00057 00018 ∂09-Oct-85 0854 KMP@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA CL meeting
C00059 00019 ∂09-Oct-85 1117 SCHERLIS@C.CS.CMU.EDU Re: Response to CL Meeting Announcement
C00061 00020 ∂09-Oct-85 1209 MLY@MIT-MC.ARPA Parallel CL discussions
C00063 00021 ∂09-Oct-85 1210 Fischer.pa@Xerox.ARPA Re: Response to CL Meeting Announcement
C00064 00022 ∂09-Oct-85 1250 MLY@MIT-MC.ARPA cl meeting
C00065 00023 ∂09-Oct-85 1401 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU Response to CL Meeting Announcement
C00068 00024 ∂09-Oct-85 1514 larus@ucbdali.Berkeley.EDU Boston CL Meeting
C00070 00025 ∂09-Oct-85 1557 KMP@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Response to CL Meeting Announcement
C00074 00026 ∂09-Oct-85 1631 pyramid!bein@sri-unix CL meeting...
C00075 00027 ∂09-Oct-85 1748 ima!inmet!luda@cca-unix
C00077 00028 ∂09-Oct-85 1852 GSB@MIT-MC.ARPA Response to CL Meeting Announcement
C00078 00029 ∂09-Oct-85 2228 cfry%OZ%MIT-AI.ARPA@MIT-MC.ARPA Response to CL Meeting Announcement
C00081 00030 ∂10-Oct-85 0257 tekchips!sridhar%tektronix.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA Re: Response to CL Meeting Announcement
C00083 00031 ∂10-Oct-85 0528 GJC@MIT-MC.ARPA Response to CL Meeting Announcement
C00084 00032 ∂10-Oct-85 0528 GJC@MIT-MC.ARPA Response to CL Meeting Announcement
C00085 00033 ∂10-Oct-85 0600 Feinberg@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Response to CL Meeting Announcement
C00088 00034 ∂10-Oct-85 1103 DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Response to CL Meeting Announcement
C00090 00035 ∂10-Oct-85 1153 Fischer.pa@Xerox.ARPA Re: Response to CL Meeting Announcement
C00092 00036 ∂10-Oct-85 2329 TIM@MIT-MC.ARPA Common Lisp meeting
C00094 00037 ∂10-Oct-85 2357 Mailer failed mail returned
C00095 00038 ∂14-Oct-85 1722 MEEHAN@YALE.ARPA Common Lisp meeting in December
C00097 00039 ∂22-Oct-85 2054 AS%hp-hulk.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
C00100 00040 ∂25-Oct-85 1330 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU Common Lisp meeting
C00102 00041 ∂26-Oct-85 1426 GSB@MIT-MC.ARPA Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
C00104 00042 ∂26-Oct-85 1508 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
C00106 00043 ∂26-Oct-85 1548 tekchips!sridhar%tektronix.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA Re: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
C00107 00044 ∂26-Oct-85 1952 fateman@dali.Berkeley.EDU Re: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
C00109 00045 ∂26-Oct-85 2019 MLY@MIT-MC.ARPA CL meeting
C00110 00046 ∂27-Oct-85 0856 SOLEY@MIT-MC.ARPA Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
C00112 00047 ∂27-Oct-85 1445 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU Spot
C00114 00048 ∂27-Oct-85 1446 fateman@dali.Berkeley.EDU
C00116 00049 ∂27-Oct-85 1918 TIM@MIT-MC.ARPA Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
C00117 00050 ∂27-Oct-85 1920 cfry%OZ%MIT-REAGAN.ARPA@MIT-MC.ARPA Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
C00119 00051 ∂28-Oct-85 0532 DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Wendy
C00121 00052 ∂28-Oct-85 0543 DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
C00123 00053 ∂28-Oct-85 0656 SOLEY@MIT-MC.ARPA
C00125 00054 ∂28-Oct-85 0739 Feinberg@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
C00127 00055 ∂28-Oct-85 0756 gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
C00128 00056 ∂28-Oct-85 0855 masinter.pa@Xerox.ARPA Re: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
C00129 00057 ∂28-Oct-85 0855 masinter.pa@Xerox.ARPA Re: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
C00130 00058 ∂28-Oct-85 1008 AS%hp-hulk.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA Re: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
C00132 00059 ∂28-Oct-85 1312 KMP@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
C00134 00060 ∂28-Oct-85 1715 Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
C00136 00061 ∂28-Oct-85 1751 Sheil.pa@Xerox.ARPA Common Lisp mtg schedule
C00138 00062 ∂28-Oct-85 1807 KESSLER@UTAH-20.ARPA
C00139 00063 ∂28-Oct-85 1809 KESSLER@UTAH-20.ARPA Re: Response to CL Meeting Announcement
C00140 00064 ∂28-Oct-85 1820 KESSLER@UTAH-20.ARPA Re: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
C00142 00065 ∂28-Oct-85 2321 pyramid!bein@sri-unix CL meeting..
C00143 00066 ∂29-Oct-85 1046 @MIT-MC.ARPA:Soley@MIT-MC.ARPA Try
C00145 00067 ∂28-Oct-85 1715 Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
C00147 00068 ∂30-Oct-85 0545 jeff%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@ucl-cs.ARPA Re: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
C00150 00069 ∂30-Oct-85 0545 jeff%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@ucl-cs.ARPA Re: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
C00153 00070 ∂30-Oct-85 0604 SQUIRES@USC-ISI.ARPA Re: Meeting
C00160 00071 ∂30-Oct-85 1443 BAUMAN@USC-ISI.ARPA
C00164 00072 ∂04-Nov-85 1238 @MIT-MC.ARPA:Soley@MIT-MC.ARPA Call
C00166 00073 ∂07-Nov-85 1351 BARNES@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
C00168 00074 ∂07-Nov-85 1036 jeff%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@ucl-cs.ARPA Common Lisp Meeting
C00170 00075 ∂09-Nov-85 2017 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU Meeting: The Details
C00173 00076 ∂12-Nov-85 0604 KESSLER@UTAH-20.ARPA Re: Meeting: The Details
C00175 00077 ∂12-Nov-85 1506 Bobrow.pa@Xerox.ARPA Re: Meeting: The Details
C00177 00078 ∂12-Nov-85 1620 Fischer.pa@Xerox.ARPA Common Lisp SRO in Boston!
C00181 00079 ∂12-Nov-85 1902 JAR@MIT-MC.ARPA Meeting: The Details
C00182 00080 ∂14-Nov-85 1447 gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA Common Lisp Meeting
C00185 00081 ∂17-Nov-85 1427 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU CL meeting
C00187 00082 ∂20-Nov-85 0859 @MIT-MC.ARPA:Soley@MIT-MC.ARPA finalization of room reservations
C00189 00083 ∂20-Nov-85 1319 brown%bach.decnet@hudson.dec.com CL meeting
C00191 00084 ∂22-Nov-85 0821 SOLEY@MIT-MC.ARPA Varia
C00193 00085 ∂22-Nov-85 0835 SOLEY@MIT-MC.ARPA Rooms for CL conference
C00195 00086 ∂22-Nov-85 1542 Kahn.pa@Xerox.ARPA December meeting
C00197 00087 ∂24-Nov-85 0800 KESSLER@UTAH-20.ARPA CL Meeting
C00198 00088 ∂25-Nov-85 0727 SOLEY@MIT-MC.ARPA FYI
C00200 00089 Common-lisp/su
C00204 00090 ∂25-Nov-85 1949 GRISS%hp-hulk.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA Re: New, Improved Agenda
C00210 00091 Speakers:
C00211 00092 ∂27-Nov-85 0115 cfry%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA registration
C00213 00093 ∂25-Nov-85 1344 Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Common Lisp meeting questions
C00215 00094 ∂25-Nov-85 1818 JAR@MIT-MC.ARPA thought
C00217 00095 ∂26-Nov-85 1858 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU Advice
C00224 00096 ∂26-Nov-85 1908 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU Legalisms
C00227 00097 ∂27-Nov-85 0758 gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA Advice
C00235 00098 ∂27-Nov-85 1141 mcvax!vmucnam!crcge1!neidl@seismo.CSS.GOV Common-Lisp Meeting / Boston
C00238 00099 ∂27-Nov-85 1741 Fischer.pa@Xerox.ARPA Registration fees
C00240 00100 ∂27-Nov-85 2214 HUDSON%umass-cs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA Meeting in December?
C00241 00101 ∂01-Dec-85 2339 HUDSON%umass-cs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA Boston Meeting
C00243 00102 ∂02-Dec-85 0907 Kahn.pa@Xerox.ARPA Japanese at meeting next week
C00250 00103 ∂01-Dec-85 1233 DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Help
C00253 00104 ∂02-Dec-85 1346 WALDRUM%ti-csl.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA Common Lisp Meeting
C00256 00105 ∂02-Dec-85 1351 gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA Meeting red tape
C00259 00106 ∂03-Dec-85 0732 SOLEY@MIT-MC.ARPA Strike
C00261 00107 ∂03-Dec-85 1059 @MIT-MC.ARPA:Soley@MIT-MC.ARPA Finalization of everything.
C00265 00108 ∂04-Dec-85 1550 AS@HP-HULK common lisp meeting (presentation)
C00267 00109 ∂05-Dec-85 0456 HIC@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Visit
C00269 00110 ∂06-Dec-85 0738 tatar%sprite.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM Re: Meeting: The Details
C00271 00111 ∂30-Nov-85 1245 RPG ANSI/ISO
C00274 00112 ∂30-Nov-85 1257 RPG More on the CL meeting
C00278 00113 ∂01-Dec-85 1756 Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA More on the CL meeting
C00281 00114 ∂02-Dec-85 0815 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU ANSI/ISO
C00285 00115 ∂02-Dec-85 0822 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU More on the CL meeting
C00287 00116 ∂02-Dec-85 0828 DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA More on the CL meeting
C00291 00117 ∂02-Dec-85 1051 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU as I was saying...
C00293 00118 ∂02-Dec-85 1054 RPG ANSI/ISO and Hotel Strike
C00297 00119 ∂02-Dec-85 1135 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU ANSI/ISO and Hotel Strike
C00303 00120 ∂02-Dec-85 1153 RPG Exposing My Machiavellan Tendencies
C00306 00121 ∂02-Dec-85 1209 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU Exposing My Machiavellan Tendencies
C00309 00122 ∂02-Dec-85 1250 DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA ANSI/ISO
C00311 00123 ∂02-Dec-85 1622 DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA ANSI/ISO
C00316 00124 ∂02-Dec-85 2037 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU Charter stuff
C00334 00125 ∂03-Dec-85 2030 RPG More on Issues
C00337 00126 ∂04-Dec-85 0833 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU More on Issues
C00342 00127 ∂05-Dec-85 1649 DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Charter stuff
C00346 00128 ∂05-Dec-85 1728 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU ISO
C00352 00129 ∂06-Dec-85 1223 jeff%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK ISO Standard
C00355 00130 ∂06-Dec-85 1321 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU ISO Standard
C00357 00131 ∂06-Dec-85 1600 FORD%ti-csl.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA Re: New, Improved Agenda
C00359 00132 gregor.pa@xerox/su
C00360 00133 bobrow.pa@xerox/su
C00361 00134 "hilfingr%renoir"@Berkeley/su
C00364 00135 ricci@xerox/su
C00365 00136 ∂16-Dec-85 0326 cfry%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA Aux common lisp mailing lists
C00367 00137 ∂16-Dec-85 1350 hplabs!snyder@hplabsd meeting reactions
C00369 00138 ∂16-Dec-85 1443 hilfingr@renoir.berkeley.edu Re: Back Stabbing
C00374 00139 Ricci.pa@xerox/su
C00375 00140 ∂18-Dec-85 0650 kessler%utah-orion@utah-cs.arpa CL Meeting
C00390 00141 Meeting Expenses
C00394 00142 ∂24-Dec-85 0527 mcvax!inria.UUCP!chaillou@seismo.CSS.GOV Hello
C00397 ENDMK
C⊗;
∂24-Sep-85 2156 REM%IMSSS.#Pup@SU-SCORE.ARPA Meeting, voting
Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 24 Sep 85 21:56:02 PDT
Received: from IMSSS by Score with Pup; Tue 24 Sep 85 21:53:32-PDT
Date: 24 Sep 1985 2155-PDT
From: Rem@IMSSS
Subject: Meeting, voting
To: RPG%SU-AI@SCORE
It sounds like only people who are members of organizations involved
in CL implementations will have any say at all regarding the changes
and other decisions to be made at the November meeting. Will there be
any freelance representatives who will forward comments from others
to the forum and who will be able to vote in the written ballot based
on the concensus of their random consistuency? Or will non-organization
people have no voice nor vote whatsoever?
-------
∂25-Sep-85 0743 Feinberg@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Meeting
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Sep 85 07:42:57 PDT
Received: from BLACKSTONE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 320770; Wed 25-Sep-85 10:43:21-EDT
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 85 10:43 EDT
From: Neal Feinberg <Feinberg@SCRC-YUKON.ARPA>
Subject: Meeting
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 25 Sep 85 00:29-EDT from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <850925104314.1.FEINBERG@BLACKSTONE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Two brief comments:
1) I agree that limiting the number of voting representatives is very
important. Streamlining the meeting is essencial if any decisions will
be made. I myself would like to attend simply as an observer. I don't
think observers make the meeting any less manageable.
2) Naturally I would prefer Boston, but Washington and N.Y. aren't bad
second choices. I would slightly prefer Washington over New York.
∂25-Sep-85 0805 @ucbdali%UCB-VAX@Berkeley.EDU Re: Meeting
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Sep 85 08:05:35 PDT
Received: by UCB-VAX.ARPA (5.25/5.9)
id AA28981; Wed, 25 Sep 85 08:06:52 PDT
Received: by ucbdali.ARPA (5.5/4.48)
id AA02018; Wed, 25 Sep 85 08:06:45 PDT
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 85 08:06:45 PDT
From: fateman%ucbdali@Berkeley.EDU (Richard Fateman)
Message-Id: <8509251506.AA02018@ucbdali.ARPA>
To: RPG@su-ai.arpa
Subject: Re: Meeting
what is an organization? A school? A company producing CL? A group usingCL?
one vote = one person? Do we have proposals on the table for each topic?
If not, I would not expect much to come from a face to face meeting.
Is there, for example, a proposal on ANSI standardization from someone who
knows what is involved (e.g. from previous language efforts)?
Otherwise, having a discussion with well-meaning but ignorant people
will be less than useful. E.g. references to CLtL as "the standard"
as though it could be adopted by ANSI, are in this category.
"fateman%ucbdali"@Berkeley
Varia
An organization is a group that obtains commecial advantage from Common Lisp.
Examples are DEC, Symbolics, Lucid. The charter proposals spell out possible
voting rights for individuals and organizations. There are proposals for all
of things mentioned in the first two lists of things I sent. You can
FTP them from SAIL:
CLCHRT.MSG[COM,LSP]
CLOBOR.MSG[COM,LSP]
CLERHA.MSG[COM,LSP]
CLWIND.MSG[COM,LSP]
There is a proposal from Squires at DARPA to keep ISO from doing something
funny by starting the ANSI process, but actually going into a stall pattern.
Apparently there is some chance that some other country will propose an
ISO standard Lisp, and we can stall that effort until the US is ready to
respond by essentially proposing CLtL, even though it might make a poor
entry into the ANSI sweepstakes.
This stalling action was proposed by someone who's done it before. I
believe Squires or this other guy will discuss the issues at the meeting.
I expect that the issues involved in potential ANSI-ization of CL are not
quite as esoteric nor as metaphysical as you appear to indicate they are.
-rpg-
∂25-Sep-85 1205 DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Meeting
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Sep 85 12:05:18 PDT
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 320998; Wed 25-Sep-85 15:05:41-EDT
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 85 15:02 EDT
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: Meeting
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 25 Sep 85 00:29-EDT from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <850925150246.3.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Fonts: CPTFONT, CPTFONTB, CPTFONTI
Having the meeting on the East Coast seems fair. Naturally I'd prefer
Boston; my second choice would be New York.
The restriction on the number of people seems pretty reasonable. I
think it would be a good idea to allow extra people who aren't supposed
to comment; it would be best to keep the visibility of the
decision-making process high, rather than engender a feeling of secrecy.
Late November is fine with me, and I agree that it should be planned
about that far in the future, for the reason you cited.
If there meeting were to be held in Boston, I'm not sure where we'd find
a suitable facility. The Symbolics building that I work in has an
auditorium that's probably large enough to hold the meeting, and I'm
sure it could be made available. However, I have a feeling that people
would prefer to meet on "neutral turf". A room at MIT would be good, if
we could find one that wasn't being used. During the school term, I
don't know how difficult it would be to find such a room. Tom Knight
might know more about this; he'd certainly know who to ask, anyway.
Alternatively, we could rent a meeting room in a hotel, assuming that
someone (DARPA) could pay for it.
∂25-Sep-85 1223 fateman%ucbdali@Berkeley.EDU "commercial advantage"
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Sep 85 12:23:42 PDT
Received: by UCB-VAX.ARPA (5.26/5.9)
id AA02292; Wed, 25 Sep 85 12:24:34 PDT
Received: by ucbdali.ARPA (5.5/4.48)
id AA04844; Wed, 25 Sep 85 12:24:37 PDT
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 85 12:24:37 PDT
From: fateman%ucbdali@Berkeley.EDU (Richard Fateman)
Message-Id: <8509251924.AA04844@ucbdali.ARPA>
To: RPG@su-ai.arpa
Subject: "commercial advantage"
Cc: fateman%ucbdali@Berkeley.EDU
I haven't looked at the documents, and I'm not sure I have the time.
Do universities then get excluded? This doesn't look right. I
doubt that UCB's interests would be represented by Franz Inc, Lucid
(we have lots of Suns), DEC (we have lots of Vaxes).
Etc
The idea behind an organizational entity was that it was something
that would pay dues (as in $10,000 and up). Would UCB be willing to do
that? Universities would be represented by individuals, who were appointed,
elected, or who staged successful coups to get the position. Individuals
would pay no dues, and hence neither would the university. Interested
parties would also be able to join.
∂26-Sep-85 0419 hpfclp!roger%hplabs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA Common Lisp meeting
Received: from CSNET-RELAY.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Sep 85 04:19:53 PDT
Received: from hplabs by csnet-relay.csnet id ad16310; 26 Sep 85 7:18 EDT
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 85 12:47:31 pdt
From: hpfclp!roger%hplabs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
MMDF-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
Received: by HP-VENUS id AA05741; Wed, 25 Sep 85 12:47:31 pdt
Message-Id: <8509251947.AA05741@HP-VENUS>
To: hplabs!RPG@su-ai.arpa, hplabs!snyder@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
To: hplabs!RPG@su-ai.arpa
Subject: Common Lisp meeting
Cc: hplabs!snyder@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.
Hewlett Packard would like to participate in the proposed meeting.
There should be 2 HP representatives, one from Ira Goldstein's
organization (probably Alan Snyder or Martin Griss) and one from
Ft. Collins Systems Division (Roger Ison or Dave Matthews) as
purveyors of a Common Lisp implementation.
There may be a strong desire for observer who need not participate
directly. In particular, at HP graphics and windows are handled
in completely different groups from Lisp, so we would someone
handy for reference.
I anticipate we would prefer to meet in Boston.
May I suggest that we propose experimenting with more than just
one object-oriented paradigm.
Finally, not everybody tracks the various CL mailing lists closely.
A summary of possible positions on chartering a standardization
committee would be useful.
~p
∂26-Sep-85 0432 AS%hp-hulk.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA Re: Meeting
Received: from CSNET-RELAY.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Sep 85 04:31:36 PDT
Received: from hplabs by csnet-relay.csnet id ad16310; 26 Sep 85 7:23 EDT
Received: by HP-VENUS id AA11367; Wed, 25 Sep 85 15:41:51 pdt
Message-Id: <8509252241.AA11367@HP-VENUS>
Date: Wed 25 Sep 85 15:42:08-PDT
From: Alan Snyder <AS%hplabs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Meeting
To: RPG
In-Reply-To: Message from "Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI@HP-VENUS>" of Tue 24 Sep 85 21:29:00-PDT
Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.
Thanksgiving week would be a bad time, I think. In fact,
the period from November 21 - 29 is bad for me. The rest
of November is OK, as is the first two weeks in December.
-------
∂26-Sep-85 0627 brown@DEC-HUDSON CL meeting
Received: from DEC-HUDSON.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Sep 85 06:25:56 PDT
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 85 09:27:35 EDT
From: brown@DEC-HUDSON
Subject: CL meeting
To: rpg@sail
Cc: jar@mit-mc
Dick,
I think another CL meeting would be useful. Here are my thoughts on
your thoughts:
- The east coast is fine; I vote for Washington (it ought to be easy
for DARPA to arrange some place for us to meet). I vote against
Boston.
- I think the optimum dates are the 25th and 26th of November.
- I think restricting the attendance to 2 or 3 per "organization" is
reasonable; most organizations would see no reason to send more.
I imagine that myself and Walter would attend. We are funding Jonathan
Rees to think about extensions for objects and errors, so I would
probably also pay his way if these topics will be discussed.
(BTW - We have asked him to think about these from a Common Lisp, not
Digital, standpoint. His unaffiliated and unbiased position may make
him a useful moderator.)
- Are you considering working-group type meetings rather than one large
meeting? I think working-groups may be more successful. If sessions
need to run in parallel, I suggest that, as much as possible, there be
an administrative stream and a technical stream. Administrative
topics include charter, ansi, validation-suites and yellow-pages.
- I think that, in addition to the topics you suggested, we should seriously
address the creation of a validation-suite and the creation of
a yellow-pages distribution center. I believe that these are both
relatively non-controversial and important; we ought to be able
to make something happen. Is there DARPA funding available for this?
I am willing to do some up-front work on these if you can think of anything
that might be useful.
As somewhat of an aside, I believe that the two most important additions
to the language are objects and errors, and we are basically willing to
accept as a standard any reasonable proposal for them (reasonable means
that the semantics allow efficient execution when compiled for a general-
purpose computer). I hope that the committee can make some progress in
these areas.
It seems from the Steele's list of CL implementations that LUCID has now
done at least three lisps. Congragulations on your success. I hope
you spread out into portable applications. CL needs some good stuff
written in it.
-Gary
∂26-Sep-85 1139 fateman%ucbdali@Berkeley.EDU
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Sep 85 11:39:00 PDT
Received: by UCB-VAX.ARPA (5.26/5.9)
id AA18233; Thu, 26 Sep 85 11:39:59 PDT
Received: by ucbdali.ARPA (5.5/4.48)
id AA01444; Thu, 26 Sep 85 11:40:10 PDT
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 85 11:40:10 PDT
From: fateman%ucbdali@Berkeley.EDU (Richard Fateman)
Message-Id: <8509261840.AA01444@ucbdali.ARPA>
To: RPG@su-ai.arpa
Cc: hilfingr%ucbdali@Berkeley.EDU
From RPG@SU-AI.ARPA Thu Sep 26 10:43:26 1985
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
To: fateman@ucbdali
The idea behind an organizational entity was that it was something
that would pay dues (as in $10,000 and up). Would UCB be willing to do
that? Universities would be represented by individuals, who were appointed,
elected, or who staged successful coups to get the position. Individuals
would pay no dues, and hence neither would the university. Interested
parties would also be able to join.
Well, I'm glad that you are not making the mistake that the Ada (tm)
people made... They insisted that only EXPERTS vote. The idea of staging
a coup undoubted occurred to some in that organization, too.
∂30-Sep-85 0657 greek@DEC-HUDSON Common LISP Meeting.
Received: from DEC-HUDSON.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Sep 85 06:57:05 PDT
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 85 10:00:29 EDT
From: greek@DEC-HUDSON
Subject: Common LISP Meeting.
To: rpg@sail
Another meeting sounds like a good idea to me. I think talking about
CommonLoops is great, but I can't imagine we're going to agree on any
kind of error system.
Also, I think we should talk about a Common LISP Registry. You've seen
my proposals, I'm sure. I think we should agree on something, or at
least agree that we think a registry is a dumb idea. Already we're
seeing lots of conflicts in package names and such.
Why not decide on the east coast city by simply picking the one with the
most Common LISP activity? Then it's probably Boston. Why make
30 people travel from Boston to New York, instead of 5 people from
New York to Boston?
- Paul
greek@DEC-HUDSON
CL Meeting
We can certainly discuss the registry idea at the meeting - I simply did
not think of it at the time.
A primary concern for me in organizing the meeting is to avoid the situation
we had during the first Common Lisp face-to-face in the fall of 1981, which was
that a certain manufacturer had 10 people for every one from some other
organization. Because we used consensus, we ended up having that organization
vetoing almost everything. If we restrict attendance to n per organization,
and if we essentially allow only 2 or 3 per organization to speak, then perhaps
there is not much of a problem.
-rpg-
∂30-Sep-85 1041 greek@DEC-HUDSON Common LISP Meeting.
Received: from DEC-HUDSON.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Sep 85 10:40:54 PDT
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 85 13:44:05 EDT
From: greek@DEC-HUDSON
Subject: Common LISP Meeting.
To: rpg@sail
Absolutely. Why don't you say that an organization can have as many
attendees as desired, but gets exactly 1 vote?
- Paul
∂03-Oct-85 1138 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU Common Lisp meeting
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 3 Oct 85 11:38:18 PDT
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Thu 3 Oct 85 14:58:25-EDT
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1985 14:58 EDT
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12148222327.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To: rpg@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Common Lisp meeting
I just learned that I will be in Germany for most of the week of Nov 11.
While my attendance at the Common Lisp meeting is not absolutely
essential, other things being equal it might be nice to avoid this week.
-- Scott
∂07-Oct-85 1146 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Oct 85 11:12:09 PDT
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 7 Oct 85 14:13:36-EDT
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1985 14:13 EDT
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12149262746.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Cc: Ohlander@USC-ISI.ARPA, Squires@USC-ISI.ARPA
In-reply-to: Msg of 7 Oct 1985 13:54-EDT from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>
Dick,
I can make it to the meeting. I would like to bring some or all of Dave
McDonald, Rob Maclachlan, and Skef Wholey, but I doubt that I'll have
money to send any of them -- I'll have to see what I can scrape up.
Know of any pots of money that could be tapped for such purposes?
I don't like the idea of parallel sessions any more than I did at
Monterrey. I'd like to participate in both the Object and Error
discussions, and have some interest in validation and windows.
As a specific counter-proposal, what if we were to run through these
topics serially in the morning, and then break into parallel sessions in
the afternoon if more discussion is needed?
-- Scott
∂07-Oct-85 1307 @MIT-REAGAN.ARPA:Soley@MIT-MC.ARPA
Received: from MIT-REAGAN.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Oct 85 13:07:12 PDT
Received: from MIT-CHERRY by MIT-REAGAN via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 8684; Mon 7-Oct-85 16:10:13-EDT
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 85 16:08 EDT
From: Soley@MIT-MC.ARPA
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 7 Oct 85 13:54-EDT from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <851007160837.1.SOLEY@CHERRY.MIT>
Date: 07 Oct 85 1054 PDT
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
To: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA, Squires@USC-ISI.ARPA,
Ohlander@USC-ISI.ARPA
I don't know if your keeping track of "I can't make it if..." messages,
but....
Common Lisp Meeting
3. The dates are, Thursday and Friday, December 5 and 6.
In particular, this is terrible for me, the succeeding week is great.
I would like to get a list of the proposed attendees for planning
purposes. I would also like to solicit one of our friends for the Boston
Area to arrange for the meeting rooms. Once I have a count of attendees, I
will pass the information on to that person.
I would attend, either for MIT or somebody else. Although I can't do
major arranging, I'd be glad to help with local arrangements.
-- Richard Soley
∂08-Oct-85 1455 Fischer.pa@Xerox.ARPA Common Lisp meeting
Received: from XEROX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 8 Oct 85 14:55:39 PDT
Received: from Cabernet.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 08 OCT 85 14:56:26 PDT
Date: 8 Oct 85 14:56 PDT
From: Fischer.pa@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Common Lisp meeting
To: RPG@SU-AI.arpa
cc: Fischer.pa@Xerox.ARPA
Message-ID: <851008-145626-2560@Xerox>
I would like to point out that having *all* of the subgroup meetings in
parallel tends to impede participation by groups that are small and
non-local to the Boston area.
Could this, perhaps, be reconsidered?
(ron)
∂09-Oct-85 0603 Feinberg@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Common Lisp Meeting
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Oct 85 06:03:28 PDT
Received: from BLACKSTONE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 329622; Wed 9-Oct-85 09:06:41-EDT
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 85 09:05 EDT
From: Neal Feinberg <Feinberg@SCRC-YUKON.ARPA>
Subject: Common Lisp Meeting
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 7 Oct 85 13:54-EDT from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <851009090555.2.FEINBERG@BLACKSTONE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Your proposal for the common lisp meeting sounds reasonable. I would
like to attend as an individual, non-voting member (e.g. I would NOT be
representing Symbolics in any way).
∂09-Oct-85 0854 KMP@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA CL meeting
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Oct 85 08:54:28 PDT
Received: from RIO-DE-JANEIRO.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 329803; Wed 9-Oct-85 11:57:31-EDT
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 85 11:57 EDT
From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Subject: CL meeting
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: KMP@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 7 Oct 85 13:54-EDT from RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <851009115739.1.KMP@RIO-DE-JANEIRO.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Glad this meeting is finally getting organized. It's a good idea to get things
moving again. Sounds like there's fuel enough to make some reasonable strides
forward.
FYI, I have been planning to crank out another error proposal (modified
to suit the latest round of discussion) and a CL implementation for
people's inspection. I've told people here at work that I need a couple
days next week to cook this up, so expect something around the following
weekend, which should be in plenty of time for people to critique and
have a formal proposal ready by meeting time.
-kmp
∂09-Oct-85 1117 SCHERLIS@C.CS.CMU.EDU Re: Response to CL Meeting Announcement
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Oct 85 11:17:22 PDT
Received: ID <SCHERLIS@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Wed 9 Oct 85 14:18:53-EDT
Date: Wed 9 Oct 85 14:18:48-EDT
From: Bill.Scherlis@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Response to CL Meeting Announcement
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Wed 9 Oct 85 10:18:00-EDT
Dick --
I very much prefer the 9-11 to the 5th and 6th: There is a
conflict with the IFIP WG2.1 meeting in Sausalito (which is the
week of the 2nd).
Sequential sessions will probably be more productive, since
the number of really key players (i.e., the quinquiverate) is small.
Bill
-------
∂09-Oct-85 1209 MLY@MIT-MC.ARPA Parallel CL discussions
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Oct 85 12:09:19 PDT
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 85 15:12:14 EDT
From: Richard Mlynarik <MLY@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Parallel CL discussions
To: rpg@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <[MIT-MC.ARPA].673881.851009.MLY>
Would be a total loss for me, as there are at least two, possibly
three, I would like to attend. (oop/errors, possibly windows)
I think that many people would plan on attending both oop and errors,
as these are extremely important to implementors.
On the other hand, I have little interest in the charter discussion,
and presumably organizations who are interested in it would be able to
field separate people to attend that session. So running the charter
meeting concurrently with an implementation meeting is fine by me, and
presumably would be ok with other people.
∂09-Oct-85 1210 Fischer.pa@Xerox.ARPA Re: Response to CL Meeting Announcement
Received: from XEROX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Oct 85 12:10:48 PDT
Received: from Cabernet.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 09 OCT 85 12:12:24 PDT
Date: 9 Oct 85 12:12 PDT
From: Fischer.pa@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Re: Response to CL Meeting Announcement
In-reply-to: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>'s message of 09 Oct 85 10:18
PDT
To: RPG@SU-AI.arpa
Message-ID: <851009-121224-3365@Xerox>
Please consider my vote for sequential scheduling of the subgroup discussions.
(ron)
Xerox AI Systems
∂09-Oct-85 1250 MLY@MIT-MC.ARPA cl meeting
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Oct 85 12:50:02 PDT
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 85 15:52:54 EDT
From: Richard Mlynarik <MLY@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: cl meeting
To: rpg@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <[MIT-MC.ARPA].673977.851009.MLY>
I forgot to mention: any time is ok with me (I live and work in Boston)
∂09-Oct-85 1401 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU Response to CL Meeting Announcement
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Oct 85 14:01:43 PDT
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Wed 9 Oct 85 17:03:05-EDT
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1985 17:02 EDT
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12149817879.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Response to CL Meeting Announcement
In-reply-to: Msg of 9 Oct 1985 13:18-EDT from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>
I believe that we can accomplish everything that we are going to
accomplish with one day spent on charter and four serial sessions of 90
minutes each on the second day. We coudl schedule a third day for
possible overflow, but most people will probably arrange to leave early
in that case. I say four sessions because I don't think "ANSI" is a
real topic. I have no idea what you think "ANSI" is about, but unless
it is simply reaffirming that we don't want to touch them with a
10-meter pole, it sounds like it would be part of either charter or
validation. The idea is to break the logjam on these issues
-- there's no way we can draft proposals at a meeting like this unless
we have drafts ready coming into the meeting.
I could probably make a meeting on Dec. 9 and 10 (and maybe 11 if we
really do need to go to three days). However, any such change should be
announced ASAP. I prefer the 5th and 6th.
-- Scott
∂09-Oct-85 1514 larus@ucbdali.Berkeley.EDU Boston CL Meeting
Received: from UCB-VAX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Oct 85 15:13:41 PDT
Received: by UCB-VAX.ARPA (5.28/5.11)
id AA03626; Wed, 9 Oct 85 15:15:57 PDT
Received: by ucbdali.ARPA (5.5/4.48)
id AA00491; Wed, 9 Oct 85 15:15:51 PDT
Message-Id: <8510092215.AA00491@ucbdali.ARPA>
To: rpg@su-ai.arpa
Subject: Boston CL Meeting
Cc: zorn@renoir.Berkeley.EDU, hilfingr@renoir.Berkeley.EDU
Date: 09 Oct 85 15:15:48 PDT (Wed)
From: larus@ucbdali.Berkeley.EDU
Dick,
We (the SPUR project at Berkeley) will be sending two people
(subset of Jim Larus, Ben Zorn, Paul Hilfinger) to the meeting in
Boston. We would prefer a later date than any of those that you
mentioned, namely DEC 12 & 13.
/Jim
∂09-Oct-85 1557 KMP@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Response to CL Meeting Announcement
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Oct 85 15:57:49 PDT
Received: from RIO-DE-JANEIRO.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 330502; Wed 9-Oct-85 19:00:54-EDT
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 85 19:00 EDT
From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Subject: Response to CL Meeting Announcement
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: KMP@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 9 Oct 85 13:18-EDT from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <851009190028.2.KMP@RIO-DE-JANEIRO.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: 09 Oct 85 1018 PDT
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
There has been some concern expressed about parallel sessions.
When you respond to me regarding the proposed schedule, please also
indicate your preference for parallel sessions over 2 days versus
sequential sessions over 3 days. Also, would the week after
December 5 - namely, December 9, 10, 11 - be open for you as well?
Some people mentioned a problem with December 5 and 6.
I have strong preference for three days where everyone is present over two days
where we have to divide our time. There is some argument that says that more
will get done in smaller groups, but the groups will not be enough smaller for
that to matter much. Given this, I am afraid that certain people will have to
divide themselves between two things they are interested in.
Perhaps the agenda can be arranged so that if key people cannot make three days,
the most important stuff (with respect to them, rather than wrt everyone) is in
the first two days. Then they could leave after the first two days (pretending
to themselves that there had been parallel sessions) while those interested in
attending the "other set" of sessions could remain to do so.
I will keep my schedule for December as open as possible to allow you to get
the timetable right. Anywhere in the Dec-5 to Dec-11 (or even a few days
either side) is fine.
∂09-Oct-85 1631 pyramid!bein@sri-unix CL meeting...
Received: from SRI-UNIX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Oct 85 16:31:16 PDT
Received: by sri-unix.ARPA (4.12/4.16)
id AA04405; Wed, 9 Oct 85 16:33:11 pdt
Received: by pyramid (4.12/3.14)
id AA02696; Wed, 9 Oct 85 15:26:09 pdt
Date: 9 Oct 1985 15:23-PDT
From: David Bein <pyramid!bein@sri-unix>
Subject: CL meeting...
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-Id: <497744626/bein@pyramid>
My vote is for sequential sessions over 3 days. Either the first
week of December or the second week is fine with me.
--thanks,David Bein
∂09-Oct-85 1748 ima!inmet!luda@cca-unix
Received: from CCA-UNIX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Oct 85 17:48:06 PDT
Received: by cca-unix.arpa.ARPA (4.12/4.7)
id AA07051; Wed, 9 Oct 85 20:43:35 edt
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 85 20:43:35 edt
Message-Id: <8510100043.AA07051@cca-unix.arpa.ARPA>
From: inmet!luda (Ludmila KopeiKina) <inmet!luda@cca-unix>
To: rpg@SU-AI.ARPA
Received: by inmet.uucp (4.12/inmet) id AA22807; Wed, 9 Oct 85 10:56:01 edt
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 85 10:56:01 edt
Message-Id: <8510091456.AA22807@inmet.uucp>
Richard,
we would like to know what you meant by ANSI in the list of
topicts for the Common Lisp meeting. Luda Kopeikina,Norm Rubin
∂09-Oct-85 1852 GSB@MIT-MC.ARPA Response to CL Meeting Announcement
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Oct 85 18:52:30 PDT
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 85 21:55:29 EDT
From: Glenn S. Burke <GSB@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Response to CL Meeting Announcement
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <[MIT-MC.ARPA].674579.851009.GSB>
I'm not certain, but i think i would like to sit in on as much as possible,
so parallel sessions would be a loss.
∂09-Oct-85 2228 cfry%OZ%MIT-AI.ARPA@MIT-MC.ARPA Response to CL Meeting Announcement
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Oct 85 22:28:25 PDT
Received: from MIT-DUANE by MIT-OZ via Chaosnet; 10 Oct 85 01:28-EDT
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 85 01:29 EDT
From: Christopher Fry <cfry%OZ@MIT-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Response to CL Meeting Announcement
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 9 Oct 85 13:18-EDT from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <851010012954.4.CFRY@DUANE>
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by MIT-OZ via Chaosnet; 9 Oct 85 14:11-EDT
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by MIT-MC.ARPA 9 Oct 85 13:47:10 EDT
Date: 09 Oct 85 1018 PDT
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Response to CL Meeting Announcement
To: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
Friends:
There has been some concern expressed about parallel sessions.
When you respond to me regarding the proposed schedule, please also
indicate your preference for parallel sessions over 2 days versus
sequential sessions over 3 days. Also, would the week after
December 5 - namely, December 9, 10, 11 - be open for you as well?
Some people mentioned a problem with December 5 and 6.
I'm implementing Common Lisp for MacIntosh at
Coral Software, Corp, a startup in Cambridge.
I'd like to attend the Boston Common Lisp meeting
along with another member of Coral.
I'd prefer 3 day serial over 2 day parallel.
Either time slot is fine with me.
......
I recently wanted to report on an error in CLtL
but my letter was rejected by some electronic sentry.
I've worked in the MIT AI lab/ symbolics community for
years and understand the need to keep mail volume
down by sending appropriate-only mail, but I'd still like
to do it once in a while.
Can you stick me on the GOOD list?
References on request!
fry
∂10-Oct-85 0257 tekchips!sridhar%tektronix.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA Re: Response to CL Meeting Announcement
Received: from CSNET-RELAY.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Oct 85 02:57:48 PDT
Received: from tektronix by csnet-relay.csnet id ac08243; 10 Oct 85 5:56 EDT
From: tekchips!sridhar%tektronix.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
To: tektronix!rpg@su-ai.ARPA
Received: from tekchips by tektronix with smtp ; 9 Oct 85 21:06:08 PDT
Date: Wednesday, 9 Oct 85 20:51:00 PDT
Subject: Re: Response to CL Meeting Announcement
In-reply-to: Your message of 09 Oct 85 1018 PDT.
WOuld the week before Christmas Dec 16, 17 , 18 be OK?
∂10-Oct-85 0528 GJC@MIT-MC.ARPA Response to CL Meeting Announcement
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Oct 85 05:28:10 PDT
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 85 08:31:06 EDT
From: George J. Carrette <GJC@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Response to CL Meeting Announcement
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
In-reply-to: Msg of 09 Oct 85 1018 PDT from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <[MIT-MC.ARPA].674959.851010.GJC>
I think parallel sessions are fine as long as there are not more
than two at once.
∂10-Oct-85 0528 GJC@MIT-MC.ARPA Response to CL Meeting Announcement
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Oct 85 05:28:10 PDT
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 85 08:31:06 EDT
From: George J. Carrette <GJC@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Response to CL Meeting Announcement
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
In-reply-to: Msg of 09 Oct 85 1018 PDT from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <[MIT-MC.ARPA].674959.851010.GJC>
I think parallel sessions are fine as long as there are not more
than two at once.
∂10-Oct-85 0600 Feinberg@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Response to CL Meeting Announcement
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Oct 85 05:59:14 PDT
Received: from BLACKSTONE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 330755; Thu 10-Oct-85 09:02:20-EDT
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 85 08:59 EDT
From: Neal Feinberg <Feinberg@SCRC-YUKON.ARPA>
Subject: Response to CL Meeting Announcement
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 9 Oct 85 13:18-EDT from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <851010085923.1.FEINBERG@BLACKSTONE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: 09 Oct 85 1018 PDT
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Friends:
There has been some concern expressed about parallel sessions.
When you respond to me regarding the proposed schedule, please also
indicate your preference for parallel sessions over 2 days versus
sequential sessions over 3 days. Also, would the week after
December 5 - namely, December 9, 10, 11 - be open for you as well?
Some people mentioned a problem with December 5 and 6.
Thank you.
-rpg-
Two day parrallel would be better for me than three day sequencial,
although I don't feel strongly about this. December 9, 10, and 11 are
fine, as well.
∂10-Oct-85 1103 DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Response to CL Meeting Announcement
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Oct 85 11:02:12 PDT
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 331070; Thu 10-Oct-85 13:59:33-EDT
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 85 13:57 EDT
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: Response to CL Meeting Announcement
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 9 Oct 85 13:18-EDT from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <851010135744.4.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Fonts: CPTFONT, CPTFONTB, CPTFONTI
I was assuming that many of the parallel sessions would be things that I
would not be interested in. So I think the proposed schedule is OK.
I'd rather not go to three days, but if I'm overruled, I'll show up.
The Dec 9 week is OK with me.
Thanks.
∂10-Oct-85 1153 Fischer.pa@Xerox.ARPA Re: Response to CL Meeting Announcement
Received: from XEROX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Oct 85 11:53:40 PDT
Received: from Cabernet.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 10 OCT 85 11:54:20 PDT
Date: 10 Oct 85 11:49 PDT
From: Fischer.pa@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Re: Response to CL Meeting Announcement
In-reply-to: George J. Carrette <GJC@MIT-MC.ARPA>'s message of Thu, 10
Oct 85 08:31:06 EDT
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: GJC@MIT-MC.ARPA
Message-ID: <851010-115420-1789@Xerox>
Could you be more specific about what sessions would overlap if they
were held in parallel? No more than two at once sounds reasonable.
I was under the impression from your first message that all sessions
would run parallel for the entire day. Seemed like a long time, but
there certainly is alot to discuss...
(ron)
∂10-Oct-85 2329 TIM@MIT-MC.ARPA Common Lisp meeting
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 10 Oct 85 23:29:36 PDT
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 85 02:32:37 EDT
From: Tim McNerney <TIM@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Common Lisp meeting
To: rpg@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <[MIT-MC.ARPA].676050.851011.TIM>
I would prefer that the meeting have more days and less overlap of parallel
sessions. In particular, I am hoping that the discussions on object-oriented
programming and errors not overlap, and to a lesser extent, the windows
discussion.
Will there be people taking minutes? If so, I would be very interested in
a transcript of the meetings. Have you done this in the past?
Tim McNerney
ICAD, Inc.
∂10-Oct-85 2357 Mailer failed mail returned
To: RPG
The following message has expired without successful delivery to recipient(s):
local-bboard-only@SU-CARMEL.ARPA
------- Begin undelivered message: -------
∂08-Oct-85 0021 RPG Quotas on BBOARD Messages
To: su-bboards@SU-AI.ARPA
There should be quotas on BBOARD messages; Russ Altman's
is this: 0.
-rpg-
------- End undelivered message -------
∂14-Oct-85 1722 MEEHAN@YALE.ARPA Common Lisp meeting in December
Received: from YALE.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Oct 85 17:22:48 PDT
Received: by Yale-Bulldog.YALE.ARPA; 14 Oct 85 19:43:14 EDT (Mon)
Message-Id: <8510142343.AA05370@Yale-Bulldog.YALE.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 85 19:55:45 EDT
From: Jim Meehan <Meehan@YALE.ARPA>
Subject: Common Lisp meeting in December
To: rpg@SU-AI
Bill Ferguson and I would like to attend as representatives from
Cognitive Systems. While we're not implementing Common Lisp directly,
we implement CSI LISP/T on top of it and are quite concerned with CL
implementation details and future trends (esp. objects).
-------
∂22-Oct-85 2054 AS%hp-hulk.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
Received: from CSNET-RELAY.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Oct 85 18:47:01 PDT
Received: from hplabs by csnet-relay.csnet id au05575; 17 Oct 85 9:08 EDT
Received: by HP-VENUS id AA00320; Wed, 16 Oct 85 21:22:12 pdt
Message-Id: <8510170422.AA00320@HP-VENUS>
Date: Wed 16 Oct 85 17:17:19-PDT
From: Alan Snyder <AS%hplabs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
To: RPG
Cc: griss@hplabs.CSNET
In-Reply-To: Message from "Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI@HP-VENUS>" of Mon 7 Oct 85 10:54:00-PDT
Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.
December 9-11 is also OK by me. I do not like the idea of parallel
sessions, as I might want to attend more than one.
I'm unsure what is supposed to happen in these parallel sessions. They
will surely be too large to do any meaningful technical work. What do
you expect to happen, say, in an all day meeting about object oriented
programming? We could present the three proposals again, perhaps in
more detail...
You imply that some voting may occur in these sessions. I strongly
object to voting on any question unless the question has been
distributed sufficiently far ahead of time to allow people to study the
issue and come to a reasoned conclusion.
Alan Snyder
-------
"AS%hp-hulk.csnet"@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
Voting
The only voting I anticipate doing is voting on procedural matters.
For example, to consider a proposal, to place some proposal-produced
code in the ublic domain, forrming a committee. All real voting will
happen after the meeting.
Voting in the Charter discussion may be more complex.
-rpg-
∂25-Oct-85 1330 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU Common Lisp meeting
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Oct 85 13:30:01 PDT
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Fri 25 Oct 85 16:32:00-EDT
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1985 16:31 EDT
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12154006534.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To: rpg@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Common Lisp meeting
Dick,
Have you decided yet when the Bostom meeting is going to be? I've got
some things (thesis defenses, etc.) that I have to schedule in the next
few days, and I really need to know when I'm going to be out of town.
If things float much longer, I'll have to guess when the meeting is
going to be and, if I guess wrong, not come to it.
Also, if things slip too much longer, it will be impossible to get
reduced-rate fares, which will make things a lot tougher on CMU if not
on me.
-- Scott
∂26-Oct-85 1426 GSB@MIT-MC.ARPA Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Oct 85 14:26:37 PDT
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 85 17:28:23 EDT
From: "Glenn S. Burke" <GSB@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <[MIT-MC.ARPA].693839.851026.GSB>
Date: 26 Oct 85 1315 PDT
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
I have tentatively booked the Hotel Sonesta in Cambridge, Massachusetts,
for December 16, 17, and 18 for the meeting (not for accommodations).
Are these dates acceptable? I must have a firm answer by monday.
-rpg-
Yes.
∂26-Oct-85 1508 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Oct 85 15:07:55 PDT
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Sat 26 Oct 85 18:09:52-EDT
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1985 18:09 EDT
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12154286503.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
In-reply-to: Msg of 26 Oct 1985 16:15-EDT from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>
Dick,
I very much prefer the originally proposed dates, and find it hard to
believe that we can't find some meeting rooms somewhere on those dates
-- at MIT, DEC, Symbolics or someplace like that, if not a hotel.
However, if it must be on 16, 17, and 18, I can make it. (I may not
stay around for the third day if things have run their course by then,
as I think they will have.)
-- Scott
∂26-Oct-85 1548 tekchips!sridhar%tektronix.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA Re: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
Received: from CSNET-RELAY.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Oct 85 15:47:49 PDT
Received: from tektronix by csnet-relay.csnet id ab14370; 26 Oct 85 18:48 EDT
From: tekchips!sridhar%tektronix.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
To: tektronix!rpg@su-ai.ARPA
Received: from tekchips by tektronix with smtp ; 26 Oct 85 15:16:07 PDT
Date: Saturday, 26 Oct 85 15:02:29 PDT
Subject: Re: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
In-reply-to: Your message of 26 Oct 85 1315 PDT.
The dates sound great.
∂26-Oct-85 1952 fateman@dali.Berkeley.EDU Re: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
Received: from UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Oct 85 19:52:00 PDT
Received: by UCB-VAX (5.29/5.14)
id AA20010; Sat, 26 Oct 85 19:53:34 PDT
Received: by dali.ARPA (5.29/4.48)
id AA00883; Sat, 26 Oct 85 19:53:29 PDT
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 85 19:53:29 PDT
From: fateman@dali.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Fateman)
Message-Id: <8510270253.AA00883@dali.ARPA>
To: RPG@su-ai.arpa
Subject: Re: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
Another variable:
It may be hard to book plane flights so close to christmas.
fateman@dali.berkeley.EDU
Meeting
I've thought of that. I've been having a hard time finding a room
large enough during the week. I'll try it again on Monday. I know
one out-of-the way Hilton (in a lousy sort of town) that seemed
largely deserted the last time I was there. It is the Lowell Hilton.
I prefer it a little earlier before Christmas myself.
-rpg-
∂26-Oct-85 2019 MLY@MIT-MC.ARPA CL meeting
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Oct 85 20:19:52 PDT
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 85 23:21:42 EDT
From: Richard Mlynarik <MLY@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: CL meeting
To: rpg@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <[MIT-MC.ARPA].693975.851026.MLY>
Fine by me..
∂27-Oct-85 0856 SOLEY@MIT-MC.ARPA Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Oct 85 08:56:02 PST
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 85 11:57:51 EST
From: Richard Mark Soley <SOLEY@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
In-reply-to: Msg of 26 Oct 85 1315 PDT from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <[MIT-MC.ARPA].694410.851027.SOLEY>
Don't know about anybody else, but Dec. 16-18 is TERRIBLE for me, either
of the previous two weeks is 10↑6 times better (original Dec 5-6, or
Dec 9-10). Unfortunately I (and probably others) made plans based on
the meeting being either of the two announced possibilities. If I can
help with local arrangements (I'm in Boston), please tell me.
-- Richard Soley
Soley@mc
Meeting
Yeah. I'll try again on Monday. There must be a spot up around
128 or 495 that will have some space. I have some ideas for last-gasp
tries. I've tried a fair bit in Boston and Cambridge (using a
Symbolics Exec Secretary) with the results you've seen.
-rpg-
∂27-Oct-85 1445 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU Spot
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Oct 85 14:45:35 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Sun 27 Oct 85 17:47:36-EST
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1985 17:47 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12154555514.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Spot
In-reply-to: Msg of 27 Oct 1985 17:35-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>
Ah, I guess I hadn't been thinking in terms of 250 people. 20 companies
and 10 universities at 3 people apiece is only 100 people. We could
perhaps limit the number of randoms we let in? Maybe that wouldn't be
advisable. Good luck.
-- Scott
∂27-Oct-85 1446 fateman@dali.Berkeley.EDU
Received: from UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Oct 85 14:46:21 PST
Received: by UCB-VAX (5.29/5.14)
id AA02558; Sun, 27 Oct 85 14:48:28 PST
Received: by dali.ARPA (5.29/4.48)
id AA04953; Sun, 27 Oct 85 14:48:23 PST
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 85 14:48:23 PST
From: fateman@dali.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Fateman)
Message-Id: <8510272248.AA04953@dali.ARPA>
To: RPG@su-ai.arpa
I would think that at that time MIT would be empty, and we could use some
lecture hall. Assuming there were hotel rooms and airline seats.
I once went to a meeting at a Marriott Hotel in Worcester, which was
reasonable, though the town is strictly pre-Ghiradelli Square - moving
in that direction by restoring asbestos factories or something..
∂27-Oct-85 1918 TIM@MIT-MC.ARPA Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Oct 85 19:18:15 PST
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 85 22:20:05 EST
From: Tim McNerney <TIM@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
In-reply-to: Msg of 26 Oct 85 1315 PDT from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <[MIT-MC.ARPA].694725.851027.TIM>
December 16, 17, and 18 would be fine for us.
Tim McNerney
Pat O'Keefe
ICAD, Inc.
∂27-Oct-85 1920 cfry%OZ%MIT-REAGAN.ARPA@MIT-MC.ARPA Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Oct 85 19:19:55 PST
Received: from MIT-JANIS by MIT-OZ via Chaosnet; 27 Oct 85 22:21-EST
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 85 22:20 EST
From: Christopher Fry <cfry%OZ@MIT-REAGAN.ARPA>
Subject: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 26 Oct 85 16:15-EDT from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <851027222051.1.CFRY@JANIS.AI.MIT.EDU>
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by MIT-OZ via Chaosnet; 26 Oct 85 16:45-EDT
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by MIT-MC.ARPA 26 Oct 85 16:32:31 EDT
Date: 26 Oct 85 1315 PDT
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
To: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
I have tentatively booked the Hotel Sonesta in Cambridge, Massachusetts,
for December 16, 17, and 18 for the meeting (not for accommodations).
Are these dates acceptable? I must have a firm answer by monday.
-rpg-
Fine.
∂28-Oct-85 0532 DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Wendy
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Oct 85 05:21:55 PST
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 342224; Mon 28-Oct-85 08:22:45-EST
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 85 08:24 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: Wendy
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 25 Oct 85 15:15-EDT from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <851028082412.0.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
OK. You should be able to get mail to Wendy Little by sending
it to Little@SCRC-Stony-Brook.
∂28-Oct-85 0543 DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Oct 85 05:43:07 PST
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 342241; Mon 28-Oct-85 08:41:55-EST
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 85 08:43 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 26 Oct 85 16:15-EDT from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <851028084331.3.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Gee, do you really expect to send mail Saturday and get responses
before Monday? Anyway, those dates are fine with me.
∂28-Oct-85 0656 SOLEY@MIT-MC.ARPA
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Oct 85 06:55:58 PST
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 85 09:57:49 EST
From: Richard Mark Soley <SOLEY@MIT-MC.ARPA>
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
In-reply-to: Msg of 27 Oct 85 1443 PST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <[MIT-MC.ARPA].695088.851028.SOLEY>
Date: 27 Oct 85 1443 PST
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>
To: Soley at MIT-MC.ARPA
Yeah. I'll try again on Monday. There must be a spot up around
128 or 495 that will have some space. I have some ideas for last-gasp
tries. I've tried a fair bit in Boston and Cambridge (using a
Symbolics Exec Secretary) with the results you've seen.
I assume you've tried both Marriotts, Hilton, Westin, Sheraton,
Sonesta, Copley Plaza, Hyatt, Sheraton Commander, Four Seasons,
Bostonian, Lafayette Place, the Charles, etc.
Some suggestions:
Howard Johnsons (in Cambridge, Newton, or Revere) -- Newton's is
quite accessable (over the Mass Pike, near subway).
Wakefield Hilton (in Wakefield, near intersection of 128 & 1).
Newton Marriott, Sheraton Tara, Logan Airport Hilton.
Good luck! Please call me at 617/253-8860 if you do want help
calling places.
-- Richard
∂28-Oct-85 0739 Feinberg@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Oct 85 07:39:24 PST
Received: from BLACKSTONE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 342420; Mon 28-Oct-85 10:40:09-EST
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 85 10:43 EST
From: Neal Feinberg <Feinberg@SCRC-YUKON.ARPA>
Subject: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 26 Oct 85 16:15-EDT from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <851028104332.1.FEINBERG@BLACKSTONE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: 26 Oct 85 1315 PDT
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
I have tentatively booked the Hotel Sonesta in Cambridge, Massachusetts,
for December 16, 17, and 18 for the meeting (not for accommodations).
Are these dates acceptable? I must have a firm answer by monday.
-rpg-
Due to unforseen circumstances, I will not be able to attend any CL
conference this year. Sorry.
∂28-Oct-85 0756 gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
Received: from THINK.COM by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Oct 85 07:56:46 PST
Received: from desiderius by GODOT.THINK.COM via CHAOS; Mon, 28 Oct 85 10:58:48 est
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 85 11:00 EST
From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
Subject: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 26 Oct 85 16:15-EDT from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-Id: <851028110019.1.GLS@THINK-DESIDERIUS.ARPA>
Almost any dates are fine by me.
--Q
∂28-Oct-85 0855 masinter.pa@Xerox.ARPA Re: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
Received: from XEROX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Oct 85 08:55:10 PST
Received: from Cabernet.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 28 OCT 85 08:57:08 PST
Date: 28 Oct 85 09:03 PST
From: masinter.pa@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Re: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
In-reply-to: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>'s message of 26 Oct 85 13:15
PDT
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <851028-085708-2075@Xerox>
What happened to the week of December 3? You changed the date without a
lot of discussion....
∂28-Oct-85 0855 masinter.pa@Xerox.ARPA Re: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
Received: from XEROX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Oct 85 08:55:10 PST
Received: from Cabernet.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 28 OCT 85 08:57:08 PST
Date: 28 Oct 85 09:03 PST
From: masinter.pa@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Re: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
In-reply-to: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>'s message of 26 Oct 85 13:15
PDT
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <851028-085708-2075@Xerox>
What happened to the week of December 3? You changed the date without a
lot of discussion....
∂28-Oct-85 1008 AS%hp-hulk.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA Re: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
Received: from CSNET-RELAY.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Oct 85 10:08:16 PST
Received: from hplabs by csnet-relay.csnet id ag06909; 28 Oct 85 13:07 EST
Received: by HP-VENUS id AA28183; Mon, 28 Oct 85 08:32:44 pst
Message-Id: <8510281632.AA28183@HP-VENUS>
Date: Mon 28 Oct 85 08:31:26-PST
From: Alan Snyder <AS%hplabs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
To: RPG%su-ai.arpa
In-Reply-To: Message from "Dick Gabriel <RPG%su-ai.arpa@CSNET-RELAY@HP-VENUS>" of Sat 26 Oct 85 13:15:00-PDT
Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.
December 16, 17, 18 is OK with me.
Alan
-------
∂28-Oct-85 1312 KMP@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Oct 85 13:06:17 PST
Received: from RIO-DE-JANEIRO.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 342686; Mon 28-Oct-85 14:49:50-EST
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 85 14:52 EST
From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Subject: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 26 Oct 85 16:15-EDT from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <851028145202.1.KMP@RIO-DE-JANEIRO.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Dec 16-18 works out OK for me.
∂28-Oct-85 1715 Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Oct 85 17:15:46 PST
Received: from EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 343009; Mon 28-Oct-85 20:14:50-EST
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 85 20:15 EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Subject: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
To: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 26 Oct 85 16:15-EDT from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <851028201531.2.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: 26 Oct 85 1315 PDT
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
I have tentatively booked the Hotel Sonesta in Cambridge, Massachusetts,
for December 16, 17, and 18 for the meeting (not for accommodations).
Are these dates acceptable?
They appear to be okay for me.
I must have a firm answer by monday.
By when? You can't have meant today if you sent mail on Saturday. Do you
mean next Monday?
∂28-Oct-85 1751 Sheil.pa@Xerox.ARPA Common Lisp mtg schedule
Received: from XEROX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Oct 85 17:51:01 PST
Received: from Cabernet.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 28 OCT 85 17:53:02 PST
Date: 28 Oct 85 17:03 PST
From: Sheil.pa@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Common Lisp mtg schedule
To: rpg@su-ai.ARPA
cc: Sheil.pa@Xerox.ARPA, ricci.pa@Xerox.ARPA, vanmelle.pa@Xerox.ARPA,
masinter.pa@Xerox.ARPA
Message-ID: <851028-175302-2772@Xerox>
Dick:
The change from the week of Dec 2 to that of Dec 16 is no good for me as
I am out of the country from Dec 16 on. Would much prefer the original
schedule if it is still possible for others.
Beau
Meeting
Beau,
we are definitely moving it back towards the beginning of December.
It wil either be December 9-11 or December 4-6.
-rpg-
∂28-Oct-85 1807 KESSLER@UTAH-20.ARPA
Received: from UTAH-20.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Oct 85 18:06:53 PST
Date: Mon 28 Oct 85 19:08:25-MST
From: Robert R. Kessler <KESSLER@UTAH-20.ARPA>
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Mon 7 Oct 85 10:54:00-MDT
Message-ID: <12154854227.14.KESSLER@UTAH-20.ARPA>
Hi Dick.
I'll be attending along with one of my cohorts (person to be chosen in
the future).
Bob.
-------
∂28-Oct-85 1809 KESSLER@UTAH-20.ARPA Re: Response to CL Meeting Announcement
Received: from UTAH-20.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Oct 85 18:09:18 PST
Date: Mon 28 Oct 85 19:10:47-MST
From: Robert R. Kessler <KESSLER@UTAH-20.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Response to CL Meeting Announcement
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Wed 9 Oct 85 10:18:00-MDT
Message-ID: <12154854656.14.KESSLER@UTAH-20.ARPA>
I'd rather have parallel, since not all of the sessions are of interest to
us. Dates don't really matter.
Bob.
-------
∂28-Oct-85 1820 KESSLER@UTAH-20.ARPA Re: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
Received: from UTAH-20.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Oct 85 18:20:16 PST
Date: Mon 28 Oct 85 19:21:48-MST
From: Robert R. Kessler <KESSLER@UTAH-20.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Sat 26 Oct 85 13:15:00-MDT
Message-ID: <12154856661.14.KESSLER@UTAH-20.ARPA>
Geez, right during finals week when the students are giving project
demos... SOrry, I can't attend that week. I guess if you do it then, I'll
have to send another representative.
Bob.
-------
∂28-Oct-85 2321 pyramid!bein@sri-unix CL meeting..
Received: from SRI-UNIX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Oct 85 23:21:34 PST
Received: by sri-unix.ARPA (4.12/4.16)
id AA01032; Mon, 28 Oct 85 23:23:52 pst
Received: by pyramid (4.12/3.14)
id AA00751; Mon, 28 Oct 85 22:29:24 pst
Date: 28 Oct 1985 22:27-PST
From: David Bein <pyramid!bein@sri-unix>
Subject: CL meeting..
To: rpg@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-Id: <499415267/bein@pyramid>
December 16, 17, and 18 is fine with me.
--David
∂29-Oct-85 1046 @MIT-MC.ARPA:Soley@MIT-MC.ARPA Try
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 29 Oct 85 10:46:09 PST
Received: from MIT-CHERRY.ARPA by MIT-MC.ARPA via Chaosnet; 29 OCT 85 13:47:26 EST
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 85 13:47 EST
From: Soley@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Try
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 28 Oct 85 15:42-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <851029134713.1.SOLEY@CHERRY.MIT.EDU>
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by MIT-MC.ARPA 28 Oct 85 19:47:48 EST
Date: 28 Oct 85 1242 PST
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
I am calling places right now. Will get back to you with results.
-- Richard
∂28-Oct-85 1715 Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 28 Oct 85 17:15:46 PST
Received: from EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 343009; Mon 28-Oct-85 20:14:50-EST
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 85 20:15 EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Subject: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
To: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 26 Oct 85 16:15-EDT from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <851028201531.2.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: 26 Oct 85 1315 PDT
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
I have tentatively booked the Hotel Sonesta in Cambridge, Massachusetts,
for December 16, 17, and 18 for the meeting (not for accommodations).
Are these dates acceptable?
They appear to be okay for me.
I must have a firm answer by monday.
By when? You can't have meant today if you sent mail on Saturday. Do you
mean next Monday?
∂30-Oct-85 0545 jeff%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@ucl-cs.ARPA Re: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
Received: from UCL-CS.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Oct 85 05:45:14 PST
Received: from aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk by 44d.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK via Janet with NIFTP
id a000666; 30 Oct 85 12:26 GMT
From: Jeff Dalton <jeff%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 85 19:18:29 GMT
To: RPG@su-ai.arpa, common-lisp@su-ai.arpa
Subject: Re: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
|Date: 26 Oct 85 1315 PST
|From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@arpa.su-ai>
|Subject: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
|
|I have tentatively booked the Hotel Sonesta in Cambridge, Massachusetts,
|for December 16, 17, and 18 for the meeting (not for accommodations).
|Are these dates acceptable? I must have a firm answer by monday.
| -rpg-
I know this is after monday, but I'm going to send it anyway. For flying
transatlantic, the 16-18 have the advantage of being over a month away
so that it's possible to buy a reasonable ticket. But they are almost
certainly into the busy (and expensive) season. (Last year fares went up
the 13th and then down again around the 27th.) Still, this way I need
stay only a week to be home for Christmas.
The dates are acceptable, though.
Cheers,
Jeff Dalton
AIAI, University of Edinburgh
∂30-Oct-85 0545 jeff%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@ucl-cs.ARPA Re: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
Received: from UCL-CS.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Oct 85 05:45:14 PST
Received: from aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk by 44d.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK via Janet with NIFTP
id a000666; 30 Oct 85 12:26 GMT
From: Jeff Dalton <jeff%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 85 19:18:29 GMT
To: RPG@su-ai.arpa, common-lisp@su-ai.arpa
Subject: Re: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
|Date: 26 Oct 85 1315 PST
|From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@arpa.su-ai>
|Subject: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
|
|I have tentatively booked the Hotel Sonesta in Cambridge, Massachusetts,
|for December 16, 17, and 18 for the meeting (not for accommodations).
|Are these dates acceptable? I must have a firm answer by monday.
| -rpg-
I know this is after monday, but I'm going to send it anyway. For flying
transatlantic, the 16-18 have the advantage of being over a month away
so that it's possible to buy a reasonable ticket. But they are almost
certainly into the busy (and expensive) season. (Last year fares went up
the 13th and then down again around the 27th.) Still, this way I need
stay only a week to be home for Christmas.
The dates are acceptable, though.
Cheers,
Jeff Dalton
AIAI, University of Edinburgh
∂30-Oct-85 0604 SQUIRES@USC-ISI.ARPA Re: Meeting
Received: from USC-ISI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Oct 85 06:04:25 PST
Date: 30 Oct 1985 09:05-EST
Sender: SQUIRES@USC-ISI.ARPA
Subject: Re: Meeting
From: Stephen L. Squires <SQUIRES@USC-ISI.ARPA>
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: squires@USC-ISI.ARPA, ohlander@USC-ISIB.ARPA
Cc: bauman@USC-ISI.ARPA
Message-ID: <[USC-ISI.ARPA]30-Oct-85 09:05:50.SQUIRES>
In-Reply-To: The message of 29 Oct 85 1706 PST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Lee Bauman at SAI should be able to help with arrangements for the meeting
room. I would prefer to use a room within one of the Universities such
as an MIT auditorium and will check in to this. It turns out that paying
for lunches on this scale is well beyond what can be handled from a
government contract point of view. It would be better to have a small
registration fee with SAI helping to make it happen. The DoD rules on
this kind of thing are very strict. This is not a matter of trying to
save money, it is really an issue of policy.
I have asked Lee Bauman to discuss some of the possibilities with us.
As you recall Lee was very helpful at the last meeting.
Received: FROM SU-AI.ARPA BY USC-ISI.ARPA WITH TCP ; 29 Oct 85 20:13:01 EST
Date: 29 Oct 85 1706 PST
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
To: squires@USC-ISI.ARPA
Cc: ohlander@USC-ISI.ARPA
Subject: Meeting
Return-Path: <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
I am proceeding with plans for the CL meeting in December in Boston.
I am getting some cost estimates, but it looks like a meeting room
sufficiently large will cost about $1000 per day. I am assuming
attendance of 250 - this is the highest possible number of attendees,
I hope - and use of the room from 8:30am until 6:00pm every day.
Lunches and the like will be extra, and depending on the luxuriousness
of the lunches and the number of people at the meeting staying at the hotel,
the meeting room can be free.
I am proceeding in the hope that DARPA can foot the meeting-room
bill, and possibly the lunch bill if I can negotiate a good price.
To expedite, Lucid will front the cash. Am I correct in assuming this?
-rpg-
--------------------
Bauman@isi,Squies@isi/cc,ohlander@isi/cc
Common Lisp Meeting
Lee,
I'm glad to hear you will be involved with the arrangements for this
meeting, as the previous meeting went quite well.
I've investigated the situation in Boston pretty carefully, and because
the CL meeting will be close to finals at MIT, there doesn't seem to be
any rooms large enough there on any dates that make sense. So I've moved
on to the hotel situation. There are 2 hotels that can accomodate the
number of people I expect - around 150-200 realistically, and possibly up
to 250. I know that a number of user groups will be showing up. I've
tried to limit number of voting attendees, but many have asked whether
multiple observers can go too. To give you an example of the number
of people I expect:
3-4 Lucid
2-3 Intellicorp
1-2 Sun
1-3 Apollo
1-3 Prime
These are people who are involved in the Lucid Commo Lisp, and at the high
end that would be 15 from a smallish segment of the Common Lisp community.
The added constraint is that many people would prefer to meet before
December 16, mostly because travel near Christmas is difficult and
expensive.
The 2 hotels are Marriott Copley and the Hilton Wakefield. The latter is
too far out and in an unpleasnt location. The prices are the same, so
I think the Marriott Copley is it. All other hotels in the area are
booked with Christmas-related events.
I can get a meeting room that will hold up to 300 at the Marriott Copley
for $500 per day. There are many restaurants in the immediate area, so we
can forgo lunch. If we can get 50 rooms in the hotel for guests at the
meeting, we can get a discount on the guest rooms and possibly the
meeting room for free.
How shall we proceed? I've tentatively booked the meeting room. Perhaps
a registration fee to cover lunches?
-rpg-
∂30-Oct-85 1443 BAUMAN@USC-ISI.ARPA
Received: from USC-ISI.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Oct 85 14:41:24 PST
Date: 30 Oct 1985 17:43-EST
Sender: BAUMAN@USC-ISI.ARPA
From: BAUMAN@USC-ISI.ARPA
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: Bauman@USC-ISI.ARPA, ohlander@USC-ISIB.ARPA
Message-ID: <[USC-ISI.ARPA]30-Oct-85 17:43:01.BAUMAN>
In-Reply-To: The message of 30 Oct 85 1029 PST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Dick;
Your investigations sound good. If Steve Squires can't get some
help in securing a large room at MIT then a hotel is the best.
How many people do you think will come in from out of town and require
hotel rooms? If over 50, the hotel should give us a group rate, and
use of the room free. Its much easier if we just turn the people loose
for lunch and they can use the hotel or anyplace nearby. Can you contact
The hotel and reserve a block of rooms ( as many as you can guess we will
need)? We can notify our invitees to get their own reservations at the hotel,
being sure to mention that they are attending the CL function).
Dick , check on availability of rooms and I'll call you next week and we'll
work out a plan to devide the work and get things going. Also, we need to
make sure that MIT is definately out. What is a good time to call you -
I'll be out Monday and at DARPA at 10:00 to about 11:30..
any other time is fine is fine on Tuesday or the rest of the week.
You seem to have things well in hand - I'll be glad to help where necessary.
Best, Lee
bauman@isi/su
Lee,
MIT is not definitely out, but my investigations turned nothing up there.
We need to move fast to get the hotel. We can ask organizations to chip
in some amount to cover the room charges, which will be around $1500.
If worse comes to worst, Lucid can pick it up, and I'm sure others would
volunteer to split the cost. I've been working with Richard Soley at MIT,
and I've told him to tentatively book the hotel.
The room deal we can get for the conference is as follows: they can block
75 rooms for us for the evenings of 8-10 December until 20 November; if we
take at least 50 by then, we get the special rates ($100 single/$115
double). People can make their own reservations (by calling Marriott &
asking for "Common Lisp Conference" rooms).
I will be unavailable the afternoon of Nov 4, but otherwise I'm at
Lucid by 10:00am PST and here until 7:00pm or so. The number is
(415)329-8400
-rpg-
∂04-Nov-85 1238 @MIT-MC.ARPA:Soley@MIT-MC.ARPA Call
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Nov 85 12:38:22 PST
Received: from MIT-CHERRY.ARPA by MIT-MC.ARPA via Chaosnet; 4 NOV 85 15:37:28 EST
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 85 15:21 EST
From: Soley@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Call
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: Soley@MIT-MC.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 4 Nov 85 14:29-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI>
Message-ID: <851104152117.5.SOLEY@CHERRY.MIT.EDU>
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by MIT-MC.ARPA 4 Nov 85 14:33:18 EST
Date: 04 Nov 85 1129 PST
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Call
To: soley@MIT-MC.ARPA
Tried to call back. Squires at DARPA balked at the lunch bill, so
we should flush that. Perhaps you could express mail to me the
stuff they sent you and I'll send them the confirmation money?
Okay. Could you give me best address for you? Also let me know what
the billing address for everything should be, Lucid/DARPA, whatever.
Also, the meeting room bill goes to $1000/day if there's no luncheon,
they may want more deposit. I'll get back to you.
-- Richard
∂07-Nov-85 1351 BARNES@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Nov 85 13:50:58 PST
Date: Thu 7 Nov 85 13:53:04-PST
From: Terry A. Barnes <BARNES@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Tentative Schedule for the Common Lisp Meeting
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Sat 26 Oct 85 13:15:00-PDT
Home Phone : (415) 969-5189
Work Phone : (415) 327-6600 x294
Message-ID: <12157429181.56.BARNES@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Teknowledge would like to send someone to the Common Lisp meeting to represent
our interests as users of the language. Have the date and location been
confirmed?
Terry Barnes
Teknowledge Inc.
-------
∂07-Nov-85 1036 jeff%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@ucl-cs.ARPA Common Lisp Meeting
Received: from UCL-CS.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 7 Nov 85 10:36:06 PST
Received: from aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk by 44d.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK via Janet with NIFTP
id a000224; 7 Nov 85 2:48 GMT
From: Jeff Dalton <jeff%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 85 02:45:44 GMT
To: common-lisp <common-lisp%su-ai.arpa@ucl-cs.arpa>,
rpg <rpg%su-ai.arpa@ucl-cs.arpa>
Subject: Common Lisp Meeting
Has the date (& place) been set? I remember a message saying it was
about to be finalized, but I haven't seen anything since then.
Cheers,
Jeff
∂09-Nov-85 2017 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU Meeting: The Details
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 9 Nov 85 20:17:35 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Sat 9 Nov 85 23:20:00-EST
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1985 23:19 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12158023899.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Meeting: The Details
In-reply-to: Msg of 9 Nov 1985 19:06-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>
Dick,
You always seem to get the thankless jobs, so I'd like to thank you for
setting this meeting up. You can't make everyone happy, but at least
this is settled now. It's too bad the hotel is so expensive, but I
guess that's the way Boston is these days.
I've had to move some things around, but I'll get there. I haven't
looked at the plane schedules, but I expect that I'll have to leave
before 6pm on the final day in order to get back; lots of others will be
in the same position, I'm sure.
I have no interest in $7.75 worth of coffee and pastry. I don't drink
coffee, and prefer to spend my money and calorie quota on first-rate
baked goods rather than stale hotel Danish. So my vote is to skip this.
I'll be in Germany all next week, but will try to revive the Charter
discussion when I get back, in the hope of having some concrete
possibilities to discuss.
Thanks again for taking all the flak.
-- Scott
∂12-Nov-85 0604 KESSLER@UTAH-20.ARPA Re: Meeting: The Details
Received: from UTAH-20.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Nov 85 06:04:43 PST
Date: Tue 12 Nov 85 07:07:17-MST
From: Robert R. Kessler <KESSLER@UTAH-20.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Meeting: The Details
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>" of Sat 9 Nov 85 16:06:00-MST
Message-ID: <12158655108.8.KESSLER@UTAH-20.ARPA>
We don't care one way or the other on the coffee and donuts. Whatever most
people want is fine with me. Have you any idea what the schedule will be?
Like when the objects thing will be? I don't want to spend more than two
days, so was thinking of Monday and Tuesday.
Bob.
-------
∂12-Nov-85 1506 Bobrow.pa@Xerox.ARPA Re: Meeting: The Details
Received: from XEROX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Nov 85 15:05:55 PST
Received: from Cabernet.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 12 NOV 85 15:01:43 PST
Date: 12 Nov 85 15:01 PST
From: Bobrow.pa@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Re: Meeting: The Details
In-reply-to: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>'s message of 09 Nov 85 16:06
PST
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <851112-150143-2634@Xerox>
What is the expected order of the sequential sessions. Will there be
presentations (Should I put on my coat and tie again?)
Who will be chairing what sessions -- and will there be written
proposals ?
And how is life. It was fun seeing you guys at Stanford.
danny
∂12-Nov-85 1620 Fischer.pa@Xerox.ARPA Common Lisp SRO in Boston!
Received: from XEROX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Nov 85 16:20:20 PST
Received: from Cabernet.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 12 NOV 85 15:55:46 PST
Date: 12 Nov 85 15:54 PST
From: Fischer.pa@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Common Lisp SRO in Boston!
To: RPG@SU-ai.ARPA
cc: Fischer.PA@Xerox.ARPA
Message-ID: <851112-155546-2684@Xerox>
Greetings. I've heard your somewhat dire predictions about the
congestion at the Common Lisp meeting. I'm allowed one trip a year by
Xerox and would like to be at the Common Lisp meeting to see some
friends that I know will be there, feel the ebb and flow, etc.
I am interested in being at the meeting, listening and talking to folks
outside the actual "meeting," not participating in the actual voting and
discussions, etc.
I'm worried that if I get there I'll be turned away at the door, which
would lose big as I could otherwise use my trip to go to SIGGRAPH next
year.
Has your feeling for whether the meeting will be crowded improved? Any
way I can be assured of a seat (bring ropes and hang from the rafters?)
(ron)
"Just a prole hacking his life away..."
fischer.pa@xerox/su
CL Meeting
I am 90% certain that we will not have a full house - I expect 150 people
maximum. If you arrive at the sessions early enough, you certainly won't
be turned away. Also, you helped us find some bugs in our Lisp at IJCAI,
so I'll make a special deal for you.
-rpg-
∂12-Nov-85 1815 Fischer.pa@Xerox.ARPA Re: CL Meeting
Received: from XEROX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Nov 85 17:58:08 PST
Received: from Cabernet.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 12 NOV 85 17:55:05 PST
Date: 12 Nov 85 17:54 PST
From: Fischer.pa@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Re: CL Meeting
In-reply-to: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>'s message of 12 Nov 85 16:25
PST
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <851112-175505-2805@Xerox>
Thanks much! See you in Boston.
(ron)
∂12-Nov-85 1902 JAR@MIT-MC.ARPA Meeting: The Details
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 12 Nov 85 19:02:11 PST
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 85 22:02:06 EST
From: Jonathan A Rees <JAR@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Meeting: The Details
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: brown@HUDSON.DEC.COM
In-reply-to: Msg of 09 Nov 85 1606 PST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <[MIT-MC.ARPA].716200.851112.JAR>
If you would grant me "standing in the community" I'll plan on
attending. Thanks.
Jonathan
Details
Ok. It's granted.
-rpg-
∂14-Nov-85 1447 gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA Common Lisp Meeting
Received: from THINK.COM by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 14 Nov 85 14:47:01 PST
Received: from desiderius by GODOT.THINK.COM via CHAOS; Thu, 14 Nov 85 17:46:35 est
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 85 17:48 EST
From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
Subject: Common Lisp Meeting
To: Tim%icad-lhasa.icad.dialnet.symbolics.com@SCRC-RIVERSIDE.ARPA,
rpg@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <851114173653.2.TIM@VANU-ATU.ICAD>
Message-Id: <851114174800.2.GLS@THINK-DESIDERIUS.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 85 17:36 EST
From: Tim McNerney <Tim@LHASA.ICAD>
Patrick O'Keefe and I would like to attend the Common Lisp meeting as official
representatives of ICAD, Inc. We are developing a functional programming
language for mechanical engineers in Common Lisp. Do we automatically qualify
as a "users group" or do you need to grant us "standing in the community" in
order to attend? One voting representative and one innocent bystander would
be sufficient. Thank you.
Tim McNerney
ICAD, Inc.
P.S. If the mailer mungs the Reply-to field above, you may have use the
following address for your reply:
Tim%icad-lhasa.icad.dialnet.symbolics.com@scrc-riverside.arpa
I'm sure there will be no problem. Dick's intent, I believe, was not so
much to be stuffy or elitist as to have some mechanism for preventing
the meeting from being railroaded by a single company sending fifty
people. (I'm sending a copy of this reply to Dick.)
--Guy
"Tim%icad-lhasa.icad.dialnet.symbolics.com"@SCRC-RIVERSIDE.ARPA/su
Common Lisp Meeting
Feel free to attend as a user group.
-rpg-
∂17-Nov-85 1427 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU CL meeting
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 17 Nov 85 14:27:08 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Sun 17 Nov 85 17:10:44-EST
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1985 17:10 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12160053740.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To: rpg@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: David Bein <pyramid!bein@SRI-UNIX.ARPA>
Subject: CL meeting
In-reply-to: Msg of 11 Nov 1985 07:30-EST from David Bein <pyramid!bein at sri-unix>
Dick,
If you're keeping a list of industrial people who should be
admitted/allowed to vote, please include David Bein of Pyramid. He's
doing an implementation, though I'm not sure they are ready to announce
this to the general public. There might be a secodn Pyramid person as
well.
-- Scott
∂20-Nov-85 0859 @MIT-MC.ARPA:Soley@MIT-MC.ARPA finalization of room reservations
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Nov 85 08:59:19 PST
Received: from MIT-CHERRY.ARPA by MIT-MC.ARPA via Chaosnet; 20 NOV 85 12:01:26 EST
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 85 11:58 EST
From: Soley@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: finalization of room reservations
To: rpg@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: soley@MIT-MC.ARPA
Message-ID: <851120115835.1.SOLEY@MIT-CHERRY.ARPA>
The people at the Marriot would like to finalize our reservation. They
need to know
(1) room setup - theater or regular? I think regular (flat) is probably
better.
(2) Coffee service?
Any other specs.
-- Richard
Soley@mc/su
Varia
1. Regular is probably better.
2. How much per person for coffee? I think it's appropriate to have it.
-rpg-
∂20-Nov-85 1319 brown%bach.decnet@hudson.dec.com CL meeting
Received: from HUDSON.DEC.COM by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 20 Nov 85 13:18:43 PST
Date: 0 0 00:00:00 EST
From: "BACH::BROWN" <brown%bach.decnet@hudson.dec.com>
Subject: CL meeting
To: "rpg" <rpg@su-ai.ARPA>
Reply-To: "BACH::BROWN" <brown%bach.decnet@hudson.dec.com>
Dick,
One of our users, Composition Systems Inc., would like to send a
representative to the upcoming CL meeting. They have about eight people
programming in Lisp and find bugs, so I think they are serious users.
What do they need to do in order to register?
Walter and I will attend the meeting as DEC's voting members. I would
like to rotate one other developer into the meeting also. Is that ok?
-Gary
------
"brown%bach.decnet"@hudson.dec.com/su
Meeting
The Composition Systems people can simply go. I am keeping track of people
who will attend. You can rotate people with no problem.
-rpg-
∂22-Nov-85 0821 SOLEY@MIT-MC.ARPA Varia
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Nov 85 08:20:19 PST
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 85 11:22:39 EST
From: Richard Mark Soley <SOLEY@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Varia
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: SOLEY@MIT-MC.ARPA
In-reply-to: Msg of 20 Nov 85 1321 PST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <[MIT-MC.ARPA].728344.851122.SOLEY>
How much per person for coffee? I think it's appropriate to have it.
Sigh. It's a little outlandish. The reference numbers below are from
the "Coffee Service" & price lists; I sent copies to you.
The cheapest services (C6 & C7) are $2.20/person/day, and include
(C6) Coffee, Tea, Herbal Teas, Decaffeinated Coffee, or
(C7) Assorted Soft Drinks including Diet.
These are of course only ONCE; if you want morning & afternoon, double it.
There is also (C9), which is $43.40/gallon of Tea, Coffee, or Decaf.
Middling prices are like $5.30/person/day, for (C2) Coffee, Tea, Pastries.
What is the status of getting money from (a) DARPA or (b) vendors? I'm
Squires' arm could use some more bending, if DARPA really wants to be the
power behind Lisp standardization.
-- Richard
∂22-Nov-85 0835 SOLEY@MIT-MC.ARPA Rooms for CL conference
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Nov 85 08:35:10 PST
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 85 11:37:35 EST
From: Richard Mark Soley <SOLEY@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Rooms for CL conference
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: SOLEY@MIT-MC.ARPA
Message-ID: <[MIT-MC.ARPA].728362.851122.SOLEY>
It might be good to get another message out about rooms for the conference.
As of now, 63 of the 75 rooms blocked have been reserved (I just checked
with the hotel). Note that this means we have already qualified for the
lower rate (such as it is). The rooms are only being held through Monday
(the 25th).
-- Richard
∂22-Nov-85 1542 Kahn.pa@Xerox.ARPA December meeting
Received: from XEROX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 22 Nov 85 15:28:21 PST
Received: from Cabernet.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 22 NOV 85 15:27:53 PST
Date: 22 Nov 85 14:21 PST
From: Kahn.pa@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: December meeting
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: Kahn.pa@Xerox.ARPA
Message-ID: <851122-152753-1052@Xerox>
Hi. I'll be in Boston for the December Common Lisp meeting. How are
you planning on running the sessions? Are the chairs of the
sub-committees suppose to run each part (despite the fact that its
sequential now)? If so, should I make up some agenda for the objects
meeting? Are presentations appropriate? I don't think repeating IJCAI
meeting is worthwhile but then again there may be lots of people that
weren't there. Should I send out a request on
cl-object-oriented-programming for agenda item? Do I have to read
Robert's rules of order?
Is the order of the sessions fixed? The reason I ask is that I see
Windows and Errors depending upon Objects.
See ya next month.
-ken kahn
∂24-Nov-85 0800 KESSLER@UTAH-20.ARPA CL Meeting
Received: from UTAH-20.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 24 Nov 85 08:00:43 PST
Date: Sun 24 Nov 85 08:59:39-MST
From: Robert R. Kessler <KESSLER@UTAH-20.ARPA>
Subject: CL Meeting
To: rpg@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <12161821292.12.KESSLER@UTAH-20.ARPA>
I will be attending along with one of my group members (Stan Shebs). Plus
Sandra Loosemore from Evans and Sutherland will be coming from here.
Bob.
-------
∂25-Nov-85 0727 SOLEY@MIT-MC.ARPA FYI
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Nov 85 07:23:57 PST
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 85 10:26:22 EST
From: Richard Mark Soley <SOLEY@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: FYI
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: SOLEY@MIT-MC.ARPA
Message-ID: <[MIT-MC.ARPA].731828.851125.SOLEY>
I just called the Marriott to check the rooms reserved, and they
straightened me out about what they call "pick-up"; the number of
rooms I told you is a count of room-nights. In other words, and
with the current numbers from the Marriott,
on Dec 7, 2 rooms will be in use by the conference
on Dec 8, 26 rooms will be in use
on Dec 9, 27 rooms will be in use
on Dec 10, 25 rooms will be in use
So, we're only talking about between 25 & 50 people with reservations.
On the other hand, people might have found other (cheaper) accommodations.
The hotel had booked 75 rooms /per night/, i.e., 225 room-nights, until
today. They will, however, hold them longer.
-- Richard
Common-lisp/su
New, Improved Agenda
Here is an outline of my idea of the agenda we should use for the
meeting:
Sunday Night:
Registration and intense lobyying
Monday, December 9
8:30am Welcome, registration, and coffee
(Registration information will used for updating the mailing
lists, possible dunning for expenses unless I can sweet talk
DARPA into fronting some money for this meeting, and for making
sure that the groups are represented.)
9:00am Charter Discussion
Noon Lunch. You are on your own for this.
1:30pm Charter/Validation Discussion
6:00pm Dinner (Intense Lobbying and Discussions)
Tuesday
8:30am Coffee
9:00am Charter/Validation/ANSI etc Discussion
12:00 Lunch. You are on your own.
1:30pm Object-oriented programming
6:00pm Dinner
Wednesday
8:30am Coffee
9:00am Windows
12:00 Lunch. You are on your own.
1:30pm Windows/Errors/Varia
5:00pm Hit the Road
During the Charter discussion, the following topics will be discussed:
Fahlman's Proposals
Inclusion of the recent minor changes and errata to the
Common Lisp specification
Publishing problems - Copyright, additions to the book
Validation
Real standardization
During the object oriented programming session, Symbolics will present
some the developments going on there with respect to flavors. Xerox will
present their plans for CommonLoops testing using an implementation that
they have been working on. I expect that the discussions will focus more
closely on the methods and plans for evaluating the various proposals than
on the detailed technical merits of the proposals.
During the Windows discussion proposals can be presented along with
implementation plans.
For people who would like to make presentations, here are some guidelines:
1. Overhead or 35 millimeter slides are OK
2. Let me know that you want to make a presentation
as well as why a formal presentation is necessary.
3. If you want to include a handout, make at least 50 copies
(that's about 1 per group).
4. Try to limit your presentation to 30 minutes, maximum. I
will have a large hook.
-rpg-
∂25-Nov-85 1949 GRISS%hp-hulk.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA Re: New, Improved Agenda
Received: from CSNET-RELAY.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Nov 85 19:49:02 PST
Received: from hplabs.arpa by CSNET-RELAY.ARPA id a005897; 25 Nov 85 22:30 EST
Received: from HP-HULK by hplabsd ; Mon, 25 Nov 85 19:30:09 pst
Date: Mon 25 Nov 85 19:30:33-PST
From: Martin <GRISS%hp-hulk.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Re: New, Improved Agenda
To: RPG%su-ai.arpa@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
Cc: GRISS%hp-hulk.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Dick Gabriel <RPG%su-ai.arpa@CSNET-RELAY>" of Mon 25 Nov 85 17:15:00-PST
Return-Path: <RPG%su-ai.arpa@CSNET-RELAY>
Received: from hplabsd by HP-HULK with TCP; Mon 25 Nov 85 17:37:48-PST
Received: from csnet-relay.arpa by hplabsd ; Mon, 25 Nov 85 17:37:07 pst
Received: from su-ai.arpa by CSNET-RELAY.ARPA id a005153; 25 Nov 85 20:31 EST
Date: 25 Nov 85 1715 PST
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG%su-ai.arpa@CSNET-RELAY>
Subject: New, Improved Agenda
To: Common-lisp%su-ai.arpa@CSNET-RELAY
Here is an outline of my idea of the agenda we should use for the
meeting:
Sunday Night:
Registration and intense lobyying
Monday, December 9
8:30am Welcome, registration, and coffee
(Registration information will used for updating the mailing
lists, possible dunning for expenses unless I can sweet talk
DARPA into fronting some money for this meeting, and for making
sure that the groups are represented.)
9:00am Charter Discussion
Noon Lunch. You are on your own for this.
1:30pm Charter/Validation Discussion
6:00pm Dinner (Intense Lobbying and Discussions)
Tuesday
8:30am Coffee
9:00am Charter/Validation/ANSI etc Discussion
12:00 Lunch. You are on your own.
1:30pm Object-oriented programming
6:00pm Dinner
Wednesday
8:30am Coffee
9:00am Windows
12:00 Lunch. You are on your own.
1:30pm Windows/Errors/Varia
5:00pm Hit the Road
During the Charter discussion, the following topics will be discussed:
Fahlman's Proposals
Inclusion of the recent minor changes and errata to the
Common Lisp specification
Publishing problems - Copyright, additions to the book
Validation
Real standardization
During the object oriented programming session, Symbolics will present
some the developments going on there with respect to flavors. Xerox will
present their plans for CommonLoops testing using an implementation that
they have been working on. I expect that the discussions will focus more
closely on the methods and plans for evaluating the various proposals than
on the detailed technical merits of the proposals.
During the Windows discussion proposals can be presented along with
implementation plans.
For people who would like to make presentations, here are some guidelines:
1. Overhead or 35 millimeter slides are OK
2. Let me know that you want to make a presentation
as well as why a formal presentation is necessary.
3. If you want to include a handout, make at least 50 copies
(that's about 1 per group).
4. Try to limit your presentation to 30 minutes, maximum. I
will have a large hook.
-rpg-
I imagine Snyder might like to discuss problems using CommonLoops as
a base for a flavors package (ie, our Objects package). He spent a day
at Xerox talking to Bobrow et al, and some problems were uncovered...
M
-------
Speakers:
PGS Windows
Moon (?) Flavors
Snyder CommonLoops
∂27-Nov-85 0115 cfry%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA registration
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Nov 85 01:15:25 PST
Received: from MIT-DUANE by MIT-OZ via Chaosnet; 27 Nov 85 04:16-EST
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 85 04:15 EST
From: Christopher Fry <cfry@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: registration
To: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <851127041517.2.CFRY@DUANE.AI.MIT.EDU>
Here is an outline of my idea of the agenda we should use for the
meeting:
Sunday Night:
Registration and intense lobyying
Would you like pre-registration via this media or can we just show up
Sunday night and sign in?
"cfry%oz"@mc/su
Registration
You can simply show up.
-rpg-
∂25-Nov-85 1344 Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Common Lisp meeting questions
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Nov 85 13:44:31 PST
Received: from EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 362364; Mon 25-Nov-85 15:07:39-EST
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 85 15:09 EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Subject: Common Lisp meeting questions
To: rpg@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA
Message-ID: <851125150914.0.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Is there a newer agenda than the one you mailed out on 7 October, when
you thought the meeting was going to be two days?
We (Symbolics) would like to present a description of our new developments
in Flavors. This is not a proposal for standardization, which we believe
would be premature, it's aimed at letting the community know what we are
doing and where we are going. We have a paper of about 20 or 25 pages to
hand out; do you have an estimate of how many copies we should print?
Should we be planning on giving a presentation with ViewGraphs and so on?
If so, for how long and in what size room? How much time for questions
and general discussion?
∂25-Nov-85 1818 JAR@MIT-MC.ARPA thought
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 25 Nov 85 18:17:51 PST
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 85 21:20:16 EST
From: Jonathan A Rees <JAR@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: thought
To: rpg@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <[MIT-MC.ARPA].732728.851125.JAR>
I hear that Boston hotel workers have voted to approve a strike. They
haven't actually struck yet, as far as I know, but it sounds like no
idle threat. I'll let you know if I hear more about this.
If you have any trivial on-the-scene advance work you need to have done
at the Marriott, I may be willing; I walk past the hotel on my way to &
from MIT every day (it's literally a 7-minute walk from my apartment),
so this wouldn't be a problem.
∂26-Nov-85 1858 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU Advice
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Nov 85 18:58:46 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Tue 26 Nov 85 21:52:31-EST
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1985 21:52 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12162464416.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Advice
In-reply-to: Msg of 26 Nov 1985 17:51-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>
Well, this is one of those awkward bootstrapping issues that are sure to
come up as we attempt to move from a self-selected group to a more
legitimate one. I guess the first question should be who is complaining
and what do they mean by "illegal". I would be inclined to ignore this
if it is just someone pumping wind, but we can't ignore it if whoever it
is has the power and inclination to make real trouble.
Let me guess who is complaining: Carl Hewitt. He has been whining about
all sorts of things, and would love to let the meeting be packed by Gold
Hill people who want something very different (a smaller language) than
the rest of us.
We've got to limit attendance somehow. We could charge a fairly hefty
admission fee, but then people like me wouldn't be able to come without
some personal sacrifice. We could limit the meeting to the original
contributors, but that is overly restrictive. We could make it
invitation only, but that is even more arbitrary. If we throw it open,
the companies that happen to be in Boston might crowd everyone else out.
One possibility is to admit everyone who has come over, say, 300 miles
to get to the meeting (prima facie evidence of a serious interest in the
meeting), and to admit something like 5 people per organization for the
locals. Then if there's room, we let in more locals, first come, first
served.
On voting, I'm not sure that the scheme proposed earlier is workable
anyway, since we have to work mostly by a show of hands and who is to
prevent "non-voting" people from voting. Probably the best strategy is
to make it clear in advance that any voting we do will be done only to
determine if there is a near-consensus on some issue. If, say, 90% of
those present agree with some measure and if no official spokesman for a
major faction (IBM, DARPA,...) objects vocally, then we would take that
as the voice of the community, though in the absence of a formal
organization nothing is really binding. Everyone present would get to
vote. Some close issues could not be resolved under these rules --
those we would have to vote on more carefully by arpanet.
I've thought a bit about how to launch an organization. Suppose a dozen
or so of us key players form a Common Lisp Association just among
ourselves, adopt some bylaws, elect a few of ourselves to the technical
committee for moderately long terms, and then invite the rest of the
world to join. If enough do join, then we've got our orgainziation and
our "supreme court". It would be the last arbitrary act of the original
self-appointed group -- after that, the members vote on everything, but
it would take a few years for them to roll over the original technical
committee.
We wouldn't do this in a sneaky or dictatorial way; we could discuss
this as one possible way of bootstrapping an organization, if the
community agrees that they trust us to set this thing up. If they don't
like what we set up, they wouldn't have to join. I just can't see any
way of getting the mob to organize itself out of chaos.
What do you think? We'd have to get a lawyer to look at this scheme and
see if we are exposing ourselves to some moby lawsuit by doing this, but
I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be able to form a little club
and then invite others to join. And if others want to implement a
language according to our club's guidelines or to require others to do
so, that shouldn't expose us to too much risk. But the courts might
disagree.
-- Scott
∂26-Nov-85 1908 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU Legalisms
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 26 Nov 85 19:08:19 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Tue 26 Nov 85 22:08:10-EST
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1985 22:08 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12162467268.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To: rpg@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Legalisms
Dick,
The more I think about charter stuff, the more it becomes clear to me
that we will not be able to settle anything at the meeting without some
legal advice (at least of an informal sort) being available. Indeed,
one of the reasons that I stopped trying to propose things on the
charter mailing list nine months ago was that every suggestion seemed to
have legal implications that I was unable to evaluate. CMU has no
lawyers avaiable for random consultation -- they employ some local firm
whenever some specific issue has to be dealt with, and somebody then has
to pay. I fear that in Boston, things will be proposed that might or
might not be legally feasible, and having no way to decide such issues
(common sense is certainly not a guide here) things will just grind to a
halt.
Any ideas? Having some company's lawyer attend is probably not the
answer, because such a person might feel that it is unethical to offer
opinions to the group as a whole. We could maybe hire someone to come,
if it isn't too late, but who would pay?
Well, maybe we can make some tentative decisions and lawyerize them
later.
-- Scott
∂27-Nov-85 0758 gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA Advice
Received: from AQUINAS.THINK.COM by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Nov 85 07:58:07 PST
Received: from THINK-DESIDERIUS.ARPA by THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 3147; Wed 27-Nov-85 11:01:07-EST
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 85 10:59 EST
From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
Subject: Advice
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA, GLS@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 26 Nov 85 17:47-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <851127105914.1.GLS@THINK-DESIDERIUS.ARPA>
Date: 26 Nov 85 1447 PST
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Someone mentioned that the setup of the CL meeting in which 2 people
per implementation effort can vote seems arbitrary and possibly illegal.
The fact I made up the rule seems like it's RPG's Common Lisp meeting or
Lucid's Common Lisp meeting. Looking again at my original message, I said
that if we accepted restricted voting at the meeting, that those votes
ought to be advisory votes or votes on meta-issues. Do you think I should
send a message of clarification? Do you think I should drop attendance
restrictions?
-rpg-
Well, it already seems like RPG's Common Lisp meeting, but there's
nothing wrong with that. One way to defuse (diffuse?) that impression
is to get other people to chair the various sessions (the obvious choice
is the chairman of the respective committee for the topic).
As for the two-per-implementation rule, it is clear to me, at least,
that we have the same problem that the Constitutional Convention did,
namely, the obvious rule of one man/one vote allows a state like New
York to tromp on everyone else. Under that rule IBM, if it cared to,
could just send a thousand people and outvote everyone else. The
solution was a hybrid: House and Senate. Your rule sounds exactly like
a Senate. As long as they are supposed to be advisory votes anyway, we
could adopt a two-part voting scheme: first have a vote of everyone, and
then a vote of "official representatives" to see whether the results
come out differently. That seems like a lot of mechanism, though.
Is this meeting intended to *decide* anything, or merely to advise and
air issues as in Monterey? If the latter, then the votes are all straw
anyway, and all we really want to know is mostly-yes/mostly-no/mixed, so
who votes is less important. If there is a chance that something
substantial might be decided, such as a charter or which
objected-oriented programming proposal to accept, then more stringent
voting procedures will indeed be required.
I, as a law-naive person, find it odd that the voting restriction might
be illegal, as the organization is not a legal entity yet, has no
charter, meets on a purely voluntary basis, and has no legal authority
to impose its decisions on anyone. I could imagine some laws getting
dragged in if we accepted DARPA funding for the meeting, though; I don't
know.
You may want to send out a note stressing that all votes will
necessarily be of an advisory nature. The aim, as always, is to obtain
consensus, rather than to impose the will of a majority against the
minority's wishes. However, there has to be *some* way to decide who
gets a vote.
If everyone accepts the voting rule, then I see no reason to restrict
attendance, provided the room will hold everyone who might show up.
--Q
gls,fahlman@cmuc/cc/su
Meeting
I'm sending this to Scott as well. The reason I'm `running' the meeting
is that Squires asked me to find someone to do it, and no one else
stepped forward.
I didn't restrict attendance per se; I said that various groups could
send n voting members who were guaranteed to get in, and any others were
welcome but might not fit in the room.
I would like to see this happen:
1. ~3 proposals for charter worked out, in detail, and a schedule
for voting on it (written vote).
2. Proposal/settlement on how to decide who gets to vote in 1.
3. Proposal and possible settlement of how to do Validation.
With ISI ready to step in, this should be easy (?).
4. Proposals for ANSI/ISO activity. France has popped up with
a proposal to propose, but Bob Mathis got himself appointed
chairman of the `ad hoc committee to think about it.'
5. Plans of attack for evaluating OOProgramming, Windows.
6. Acceptance of changes made to CL so far - could you bring a
list of them to pass out?
7. Thinking about the next edition.
∂27-Nov-85 1141 mcvax!vmucnam!crcge1!neidl@seismo.CSS.GOV Common-Lisp Meeting / Boston
Received: from SEISMO.CSS.GOV by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Nov 85 11:41:02 PST
Return-Path: <mcvax!vmucnam!crcge1!neidl>
Received: from mcvax.UUCP by seismo.CSS.GOV with UUCP; Wed, 27 Nov 85 14:19:05 EST
Received: by mcvax.UUCP; Wed, 27 Nov 85 19:46:14 +0100 (MET)
Received: by vmucnam.UUCP; Wed, 27 Nov 85 18:28:37 GMT (MET)
Received: by crcge1.DIN (4.12/4.7)
id AA00282; Wed, 27 Nov 85 18:29:42 -0100
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 85 18:29:42 -0100
From: mcvax!vmucnam!crcge1!neidl@seismo.CSS.GOV (Eugen Neidl)
Message-Id: <8511271729.AA00282@crcge1.DIN>
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Common-Lisp Meeting / Boston
Cc: crcge1!papon@seismo.CSS.GOV
To: Richard Gabriel
Dear Sir,
I will attend to the Common-Lisp Meeting in Boston, Dec. 9,10 and 11.
May I briefly present me: We met us once at INRIA (Paris), some months
ago, together with J.Chailloux. I am working with E. Papon on the
MAIA-Project at Laboratoires de Marcoussis, France. The aim of the
project is to construct a machine specialized Lisp and Prolog.
The Lisp System we implement is Common-Lisp.
I hope for a succesful meeting and look forward to see you in Boston.
Sincerly yours
Eugen Neidl
∂27-Nov-85 1741 Fischer.pa@Xerox.ARPA Registration fees
Received: from XEROX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Nov 85 17:40:56 PST
Received: from Cabernet.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 27 NOV 85 17:22:12 PST
Date: 27 Nov 85 17:21 PST
From: Fischer.pa@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Registration fees
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <851127-172212-1055@Xerox>
Greetings again keeper of the complexity.
Amidst the swirling plans for the meeting has a clear picture of the
meeting fee been seen? That is, if DARPA doesn't pick up the tab...
The local folks here are trying to budget my trip.
(ron)
fischer.pa@xerox/su
Meeting Fees
The probable expenditure will be $5000 for the whole meeting, and
I'm not sure whether DARPA will pay. There will be a per company charge,
if needed, and Xerox will pay that regardless of how many people show
up, I think.
-rpg-
∂27-Nov-85 2214 HUDSON%umass-cs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA Meeting in December?
Received: from CSNET-RELAY.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 27 Nov 85 22:14:36 PST
Received: from umass-cs by csnet-relay.csnet id as16595; 28 Nov 85 1:08 EST
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 85 12:48 EST
From: Rick Hudson <HUDSON%umass-cs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
To: rpg%su-ai.arpa@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: Meeting in December?
In you recent letter to the charter group you mentioned a meeting in
December. Could you tell me when and where this meeting is to be held as
well as who to contact for more information.
Rick Hudson
∂01-Dec-85 2339 HUDSON%umass-cs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA Boston Meeting
Received: from CSNET-RELAY.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Dec 85 23:39:02 PST
Received: from umass-cs by csnet-relay.csnet id ac20375; 2 Dec 85 2:34 EST
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 85 17:04 EST
From: Rick Hudson <HUDSON%umass-cs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
To: rpg%su-ai@umass-cs.CSNET
Subject: Boston Meeting
Dick Gabriel,
I will be attending the meeting in Boston next week. UMass and
Control Data Corporation are jointly developing a Common Lisp
for CDC's 800 series machines. I will be the only one
representing this implementation effort. If you could see that
my name gets on whatever lists are apprpriate I would
appreciate it. See you there.
Thank you,
Rick Hudson
∂02-Dec-85 0907 Kahn.pa@Xerox.ARPA Japanese at meeting next week
Received: from XEROX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 2 Dec 85 09:07:14 PST
Received: from Cabernet.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 02 DEC 85 09:06:24 PST
Date: 2 Dec 85 09:06 PST
From: Kahn.pa@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Japanese at meeting next week
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: Kahn.pa@Xerox.ARPA
Message-ID: <851202-090624-2452@Xerox>
I received the following message from Masayuki Ida who is the head of
the Japanese Common Lisp effort. He wants to know if he is welcome at
the meeting next week and what status he would have. You can reply
directly to him as
ucbvax!hplabs!kddlab!titcca!ccut!ida@CS-NET-RELAY and/or to me.
-ken kahn
"ucbvax!hplabs!kddlab!titcca!ccut!ida"@CSNET-RELAY/su
Common Lisp Meeting
Dr. Ida:
Please feel free to attend the Common Lisp Meeting next week. It is
at:
Boston Marriott Hotel Copley Place
110 Huntington Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts 02117
(617)236-5800
on Monday through Wednesday, December 9-11, starting at 8:30am each day.
-rpg-
----- Begin Forwarded Messages -----
Return-Path: <cbosgd!ccut.u-tokyo.junet!a7078@seismo.CSS.GOV>
Received: from seismo.CSS.GOV by Xerox.ARPA ; 30 NOV 85 08:30:32 PST
Return-Path: <cbosgd!ccut.u-tokyo.junet!a7078>
Received: from cbosgd.UUCP by seismo.CSS.GOV with UUCP; Sat, 30 Nov 85
11:24:11 EST
Received: from py/garage/packard.DK
by cbosgd.ATT.UUCP (4.12/UUCP-Project/11.09.85)
id AA02297; Sat, 30 Nov 85 09:41:35 est
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 85 21:01:46+0900
From: a7078@ccut.u-tokyo.junet.ARPA (Masayuki Ida)
Message-Id: <8511281201.AA19579@u-tokyo.junet>
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.UUCP id AA25334; 30 Nov 85 08:38:35 CST (Sat)
Received: by kddlabs.junet (4.12/4.7)
id AA02531; Sat, 30 Nov 85 00:00:44 jst
Received: by kddlabs.junet (4.12/4.7)
id AA02523; Sat, 30 Nov 85 00:00:37 jst
Received: by titan.junet (4.12/3.14)
id AA01808; Fri, 29 Nov 85 18:11:22 jst
Received: by u-tokyo.junet (4.12/4.9J)
id AA19579; Thu, 28 Nov 85 21:01:46+0900
Received: from ihnp4.UUCP by py/garage/packard.DK; 8511301442
To: Kahn.pa
Dear Dr. Kahn;
Congraturation!!! We did it.
I sent this letter though two paths.
One is titcca!kddlab!hplabs!ucbvax!Xerox.ARPA!Kahn.pa,
The other is
titcca!kddlab!hplabs!ucbvax!dual!lll-crg!seismo!Xerox.ARPA!Kahn.pa.
I believe this letter will be received by you.
I have several things to talk with you. Randomly;
1) I am implementing my pilot version of commonloops on my lisp.
The basic mechanisms of my implementation will be on WGSYM IPSJ meeting
of
December. I want to be checked by you wether my design will conform
your spec. or not. If possible, I will visit your room and have a
discussion.
2) I formed commonloops working group and subset working group under my
committee.
I feel my responsibility to explain my intention and schedule to USA.
I hope this story will be a good example of a good (faithfull and
honest) relation between US and japan.
I had already many schedules on the week. And I informed prof.Fahlman
that
it is difficult to attend(I am not sure wether he received the letter).
Along the date will be nearer and nearer, I feel I should attend the
meeting,
and I want to attend the meeting.
Or, I want to send a notetaker (observer) for the meeting.
How can I arrange? Or it is too late?
4) I sent several test mail to some persons.
I appreciate your effort to cut out the path.
If you have something I can assist you, please let me know.
5) a7078 is my registered code name at ccut.
"ida" is aliased to a7078.
I hope good hear from you. thank you.
ccut!ida
Masayuki Ida
Aoyama Gakuin University
P.S. The contract of CSNET gateway was finished early this month.
I am only a user for network jobs, and I am looking forward to the
official
CSNET gateway will be opened. I heard from Prof. Ishida who are
responsible
for the matter, that it will take atleast several months to settle
management
affairs.
-----------------
$.
----- End Forwarded Messages -----
∂01-Dec-85 1233 DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Help
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Dec 85 12:33:27 PST
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 364784; Sun 1-Dec-85 15:30:59-EST
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 85 15:37 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: Help
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 30 Nov 85 16:00-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <851201153739.5.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
I generally scribble pretty hard about things I'm interested in, but I
should warn you that I usually stop scribbling when things get too deep
into details, or when my arm gets tired (seriously). But I take it
you're asking about production of real, formal minutes of the sort that
might be distributed. I'd be willing to do it if they don't have to be
done in great detail; producing an actual transcript, or even trying to
get down on paper everyone's suggests, comments, and points, would
really be hard. Do you know what level of detail we need?
Yes, I'd be interested in getting together while you're in Cambridge.
It would probably be safest to set up a time in advance. Do you know
when you'll be here? What with all the other business between Symbolics
and Lucid, are there other people who you might want to see also?
∂02-Dec-85 1346 WALDRUM%ti-csl.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA Common Lisp Meeting
Received: from CSNET-RELAY.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 2 Dec 85 13:45:50 PST
Received: from ti-csl by csnet-relay.csnet id a027483; 2 Dec 85 16:33 EST
Date: 2 Dec 1985 1328-CST
From: Ellen <WALDRUM%CSL60%ti-csl.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Common Lisp Meeting
To: rpg%su-ai.arpa@csnet-relay.arpa
cc: waldrum%ti-csl@csnet-relay.arpa
Received: from csl60 by ti-csl; Mon, 2 Dec 85 13:40 CST
Dick,
TI will help with the expenses for the meeting if DARPA won't.
Can you tell me approximately how much the total will be? Also,
how many people do you expect to attend?
-- Ellen Waldrum
P.S. Can we be of assistance in persuading DARPA to come up with
some funding? I can get the project manager for the Compact
Lisp Machine contract to apply some pressure if you want.
-------
"waldrum%ti-csl"@csnet-relay/su
Help
Thanks for your gracious offer of help.
I think that at the meeting I can apply some pressure. The expenses seem
to about $1000 for the room (per day, I think) and about $400 per day
for coffee and drinks. Actually, the latter amount is about $4 per
person per day. I expect between 100 and 150 people, probably at the
low end of that. The room will hold up to around 300, I'm told.
France and Japan are sending some people, and I suspect some
vendors will send a lot of observers. What I'm saying is that
I could be surprised either by a low turnout or a high one.
My plan is to play it by ear next week and determine early on
how much DARPA will pay. With Lucid, TI, Symbolics, LMI, DEC,
and Xerox chipping in, if necessary, I doubt the costs will
hurt much.
-rpg-
∂02-Dec-85 1351 gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA Meeting red tape
Received: from AQUINAS.THINK.COM by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 2 Dec 85 13:50:58 PST
Received: from THINK-DESIDERIUS.ARPA by THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 3300; Mon 2-Dec-85 10:41:31-EST
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 85 10:38 EST
From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
Subject: Meeting red tape
To: rpg@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA
Message-ID: <851202103819.4.GLS@THINK-DESIDERIUS.ARPA>
Karen Huff of Intermetrics just called me up to tell me that Norman Rubin
and Luda Kopeikina would be their Official Voting Representatives at the
meeting, but she would also like to attend. I said fine and that I would
pass these bits along. She also inquired as to whether an official
attendance list was being constructed ahead of time and whether DARPA would
be represented there. I said I didn't know for sure.
--Q
gls/su
Intermetrics
There will be no ahead-of-time attendance list, but I'll have one for the
second day of the meeting - I hope. I know that all the usual players
will be there plus some European and Japanese representatives. Xerox is
sending around 8 people. Karen Huff is welcome to observe.
DARPA will send Ohlander, probably Squires, and Mathis (ISO hacker).
-rpg-
∂03-Dec-85 0732 SOLEY@MIT-MC.ARPA Strike
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 3 Dec 85 07:31:54 PST
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 85 10:34:25 EST
From: Richard Mark Soley <SOLEY@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Strike
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: SOLEY@MIT-MC.ARPA
In-reply-to: Msg of 02 Dec 85 1101 PST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <[MIT-MC.ARPA].739792.851203.SOLEY>
Date: 02 Dec 85 1101 PST
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>
To: soley at MIT-MC.ARPA
Re: Strike
There is some concern about the strike. Which concern is expressed
by possible attendees, some of whom are coming from Europe and Japan.
Could you check up on the situation asap? Thanks.
-rpg-
Instead of calling, I went by the hotel yesterday in person and asked.
They say that there is no problem. I tend to believe this, since
(1) not all hotels are being affected, only 8, and (2) our conference
needs almost no labor (I'm sure I could roust enough help to set up chairs
if the need arises). I will keep on top of it (I'm calling them again
today).
-- Richard
∂03-Dec-85 1059 @MIT-MC.ARPA:Soley@MIT-MC.ARPA Finalization of everything.
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 3 Dec 85 10:59:41 PST
Received: from MIT-CHERRY.ARPA by MIT-MC.ARPA via Chaosnet; 3 DEC 85 13:59:53 EST
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 85 13:57 EST
From: Soley@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Finalization of everything.
To: rpg@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: soley@MIT-MC.ARPA
Message-ID: <851203135712.2.SOLEY@MIT-CHERRY.ARPA>
First, worry number (1) is over. The hotel strike was averted late
Sunday night (besides, the Marriott is non-union, so they weren't one of
the hotels affected anyway).
There will be 250 seats set up facing a podium (with seats for about 10
in front at the podium table). There will be a table outside for
registration on Monday & Tuesday.
The total cost will be:
CHARGE PER DAY TOTAL
------------------- ------- -------
Room charge $ 1000 $ 3000
Coffee/tea 440 1320
(8:30 & 2:30)
Audience mikes 36 108
Room setup 20 60
-------
$ 4488
Less deposit 1000
Amount due: $ 3488
They would like a check or credit card for $3488 on Monday; if there is
some problem with getting this by then please let me know immediately
(if necessary, I can cover it temporarily).
See you Monday.
-- Richard
$$$
I can bring a check. Could you also make sure that an overhead projector
appears, and a white/black board, if possible? Thanks.
-rpg-
∂04-Dec-85 0832 @MIT-MC.ARPA:Soley@MIT-MC.ARPA $$$
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Dec 85 08:32:39 PST
Received: from MIT-CHERRY.ARPA by MIT-MC.ARPA via Chaosnet; 4 DEC 85 11:33:01 EST
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 85 11:30 EST
From: Soley@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: $$$
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
cc: soley@MIT-MC.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 3 Dec 85 17:50-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <851204113029.3.SOLEY@MIT-CHERRY.ARPA>
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by MIT-MC.ARPA 3 Dec 85 18:52:54 EST
Date: 03 Dec 85 1450 PST
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: $$$
To: soley@MIT-MC.ARPA
I can bring a check. Could you also make sure that an overhead projector
appears, and a white/black board, if possible? Thanks.
Done. Please add $180 to your check. ($25/day projector, $35/day screen).
-- Richard
∂04-Dec-85 1550 AS@HP-HULK common lisp meeting (presentation)
Received: from HPLABS.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Dec 85 15:50:09 PST
Received: from HP-HULK by hplabsd ; Wed, 4 Dec 85 15:23:12 pst
Date: Wed 4 Dec 85 15:24:21-PST
From: Alan Snyder <AS@HP-HULK>
Subject: common lisp meeting (presentation)
To: rpg@SU-AI.ARPA
I would like to make a presentation during the object-oriented
programming session. I am prepared to report on the status/availability
on HP-objects, to describe the implementation hooks we believe are
needed to support HP-objects well, and to summarize the results of our
meeting with the Xerox folks on the ability of CommonLoops to support
HP-objects. (Danny Bobrow and I have exchanged notes on our meeting,
but I'm not yet sure that we agree on the results or their
interpretations.) I believe I could present this information in less
than 30 minutes, exclusive of discussion.
Alan Snyder
-------
"as%hplabs"@csnet-relay/su
Presentation
You're on. I also suggest you talk a little bit about the system
itself.
-rpg-
∂05-Dec-85 0456 HIC@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Visit
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 5 Dec 85 04:55:58 PST
Received: from DEERFIELD.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 367724; Thu 5-Dec-85 07:52:52-EST
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 85 07:55 EST
From: Howard I. Cannon <HIC@SCRC-YUKON.ARPA>
Subject: Visit
To: RPG@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 4 Dec 85 14:53-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <851205075546.8.HIC@DEERFIELD.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: 04 Dec 85 1153 PST
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
I'll be visiting DLW next thursday. Perhaps I can stop by and chat with
you folks, too?
-rpg-
I'll be in a big meeting all day, but I'd like to have a chance to chat.
Maybe around lunch-time?
"hic%scrc"@mc/su
Visit
I'll come by around 11:30 and perhaps we can grab a bite.
-rpg-
∂06-Dec-85 0738 tatar%sprite.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM Re: Meeting: The Details
Received: from DECWRL.DEC.COM by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Dec 85 07:38:08 PST
Received: from DEC-RHEA.ARPA (dec-rhea) by decwrl.DEC.COM (4.22.01/4.7.34)
id AA19059; Fri, 6 Dec 85 07:38:43 pst
Message-Id: <8512061538.AA19059@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Date: Friday, 6 Dec 1985 07:35:23-PST
From: tatar%sprite.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM (DTN: 283-6235 PHONE-NUMBER: 273-6235)
To: rpg@su-ai.ARPA
Subject: Re: Meeting: The Details
Hello--do you anticipate major problem for people (like me) who would
like to be observers for at least part of the Common LISP conference?
--Debbie Tatar
"tatar%sprite.DEC"@decwrl.DEC.COM/su
Meeting
No, I see no problem. Simply show up.
-rpg-
∂30-Nov-85 1245 RPG ANSI/ISO
To: quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
I had hoped to have gotten the full story behind what I'm about to
relate to you before I had to send this message, but time before the
CL meeting is short, and I'll have to remember the story as best I can.
ISO met some time in September or October. Steve Squires sent his friend,
Bob Mathis, who was part of the Ada ISO committee (?). The meeting was in
Paris, and Steve was concerned that `something funny' would happen. As it
turned out, France proposed to propose a Lisp standard and volunteered to
head the Lisp committee. Being primed, Mathis stepped in and got himself
appointed head of the ad hoc committee to study the question of an ISO
standard Lisp.
Squires put Mathis in touch with me to start the wheels in motion for the
Common Lisp group to do something about France's bid. I have heard rumors
of French disappointment with CL (mostly voiced by Jerome Chailloux).
I believe that we may have to respond to this challenge somehow or other,
and possibly it requires us to start down the true standardization road.
Not having seen this road before, it doesn't scare me, but I gather it scares
many others. Mathis is coming to the meeting, and we can discuss the issues
more fully with him.
∂30-Nov-85 1257 RPG More on the CL meeting
To: quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Would you folks be interested in a caucus before the meeting to talk
about what you think will go on? We can caucus via this medium, if you
like.
Having seen how these meetings tend to go, I'd like to recommend the
style of meeting in which people are recognized to hold the floor for
some length of time, yielding in formal ways to others. This would
be along the normal lines of parliamentary rules. I want to keep the
randomness to a minimum, and I can easily imagine someone like Carrette
and Jonl going at it with each other - this I want to avoid.
The three proposals for charter that seem viable are the Fahlman
full-blown proposal of Jan 21, the Fahlman mimimalist proposal of Feb 18,
and the Fahlman Common Lisp Club idea. This last idea, if I may present
it, is for us to form a Common Lisp Organization as a private `club,'
with rules and bylaws, and curious document called the Common Lisp Book.
People may join the club and agree to live by the Book, but CL is no more
standard than that. Fahlman's idea is a little less silly than that sounds,
in that it would be a legal organization with some instrument of `incorporation'
of some sort.
I propose we put these proposals on the table for discussion and record
the opinions we get at the meeting.
One phenomenon I'd like to point out to you as existing, but about which you
might not be aware, is that a large fraction of the programming-related
world that knows of Common Lisp, believes that there is a Common Lisp Group
that makes decisions and holds a standard somewhere. People are constantly
calling me and asking when the Common Lisp Group will decide this, that, or
the other thing. People tend to identify that group with us. Perhaps it's
time for us to demonstrate a little more leadership than we have in the past.
-rpg-
∂01-Dec-85 1756 Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA More on the CL meeting
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 1 Dec 85 17:56:22 PST
Received: from EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 364899; Sun 1-Dec-85 20:53:51-EST
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 85 20:52 EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Subject: More on the CL meeting
To: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
cc: quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: The message of 30 Nov 85 15:57-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Message-ID: <851201205239.5.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: 30 Nov 85 1257 PST
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Would you folks be interested in a caucus before the meeting to talk
about what you think will go on? We can caucus via this medium, if you
like.
I'm busy but willing to listen to mail. I have not planned to participate in
the charter discussion at all.
....One phenomenon I'd like to point out to you as existing, but about which you
might not be aware, is that a large fraction of the programming-related
world that knows of Common Lisp, believes that there is a Common Lisp Group
that makes decisions and holds a standard somewhere. People are constantly
calling me and asking when the Common Lisp Group will decide this, that, or
the other thing. People tend to identify that group with us. Perhaps it's
time for us to demonstrate a little more leadership than we have in the past.
Does this mean that a fourth proposal should be put on the table, that anything
to which the five people on the title page of the manual agree among themselves
is the law and everyone else has to accept it?
∂02-Dec-85 0815 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU ANSI/ISO
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 2 Dec 85 08:15:23 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 2 Dec 85 11:11:42-EST
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1985 11:11 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12163920553.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To: quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: ANSI/ISO
I'm not convinced that the ISO thing is any kind of threat to the spread
of Common Lisp. Suppose we do nothing. The French get ISO to form a
committee on Lisp, seize control of it, and produce some silly standard
based on Le Lisp. My guess is that all of the major U.S. manufacturers,
plus most manufacturers in Japan and some in Europe (Siemens, for
example) will ignore this and continue to develop Common Lisp and things
based on Common Lisp.
If that's how it works out, how does the ISO business hurt anything? Is
there really a chance that anyone outside of the EEC would follow the
ISO standard, or that it would lead to a serious split if some Europeans
did decide to fillow ISO? Some of the Europeans will undoubtedly find
some reason to split off anyway, just to keep their record for chronic
wrong-headedness intact. Might European governments require ISO Lisp,
even though that shuts them off from all of the best technology? I
suppose that an ISO standard would give the French an excuse to split
off by themselves while saying that they are right and everyone else is
wrong, since only they are adhering to the ISO standard, but the French
do this all the time anyway and the rest of the world ignores them. If
we're careful to lend no credibility to the ISO thing, it should just
disappear as so many silly standards have in the past.
So unless someone can make a case for why this is important, I say we
should just ignore it, after maybe a bit of discussion at the meeting.
-- Scott
∂02-Dec-85 0822 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU More on the CL meeting
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 2 Dec 85 08:22:17 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 2 Dec 85 11:22:11-EST
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1985 11:22 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12163922524.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To: quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: More on the CL meeting
In-reply-to: Msg of 30 Nov 1985 15:57-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>
I am preparing some thoughts on charter stuff that I will send out later
today.
It would be helpful if one of the Boston people (
∂02-Dec-85 0828 DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA More on the CL meeting
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 2 Dec 85 08:28:43 PST
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 365216; Mon 2-Dec-85 11:23:12-EST
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 85 11:29 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: More on the CL meeting
To: Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA
cc: quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <851201205239.5.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Message-ID: <851202112950.6.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 85 20:52 EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Does this mean that a fourth proposal should be put on the table, that anything
to which the five people on the title page of the manual agree among themselves
is the law and everyone else has to accept it?
I didn't get the impression that RPG was suggesting anything quite that
extreme. I, too, am aware that lots of people assume that there is a
"Common Lisp committee" out there somewhere, and that things are under
some kind of control. Right now, of course, that's not true; we don't
even have a forum for resolving ambiguities in the manual.
Big meetings such as the upcoming one can go on for a long time and not
produce any results, and if that happens at this meeting, not only will
we all feel like we wasted our time, but we will probably give up on
ever trying to have such a meeting again, because we'll be convinced
that it's hopeless. So it's important that this meeting get something
done, and give us all the feeling that progress is being made. The
question is how to help assure that the meeting really is effective.
My interpretation of what RPG was suggesting is that one way to help
make sure something happens is for us to show some leadership. We hope
that if we can form a core group (a) with a more or less consistent
opinion, and (b) with our implied prestige, then this might form a seed
around which other opinions could crystalize. If it turns out that a
lot of people are opposed to what the five of us might feel, then of
course we don't take any special kind of precedence. What we're trying
to prevent is a situation in which there are several alternatives, some
of which are better than doing nothing at all, but nothing at all gets
done because there's no way to build a concensus. At least that's my
interpretation.
∂02-Dec-85 1051 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU as I was saying...
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 2 Dec 85 10:51:23 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 2 Dec 85 13:51:21-EST
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1985 13:51 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12163949688.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To: quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: as I was saying...
The last message went off half-cocked. I was trying to say two things:
1. I have some thoughts on the charter stuff that I will try to cast
into some usable form and get off to the rest of you later today.
2. It would help if someone in Boston (maybe Guy) were to investigate
what effect this hotel strike is likely to have on the upcoming
conference. If by the end of this week it looks like the hotel we are
meeting in is down, we might need to cancel this whole thing.
-- Scott
∂02-Dec-85 1054 RPG ANSI/ISO and Hotel Strike
To: quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
I'm simply not sure whether or not having an ISO standard Lisp
makes any difference, either in general or anymore. It seems
we are at the crossroads as to whether Common Lisp remains the
`property' of us (the CLG at large) or whether it is part of the
world at large.
There are two possible courses: Leave standardization alone, and
go after it.
People mention horror stories. So far the people who have done so
are people who would seem to be otherwise afraid of political
battle. I'll buy a lobster dinner at Legal for any one of you who
can tell me a real horror story that actually happened and which
scares me in some way. If we ignored all standardization, that makes
a statement against official standards and also tells the world
we are above the normal hue and cry. Is that what we want?
If we go for standardization, we should aim to avoid to the supposed
horror scenarios and thereby show the world that it can be done. Then
we'll be able to tell our friends anti-horror stories about the
standardization battle.
Suppose we start down the ISO route and it gets bad, can't we simply
drop it or lose interest enough so that it isn't a hassle for us anymore?
In other words, what is the downside of ignoring the standardization
issue? If there isn't one, why did Squires send his stooge to Paris to
prevent us from losing the edge?
I don't want the reason for us not going with ANSI and ISO to be:
Gee, I heard a horror story about something or other and I don't want
us involved with that; plus, we're too strong for anyone to make a
dent in our position. ...Unless we know the facts about what can happen
and how those events are unimportant or reparable.
About the hotel strike: My Boston operatives are looking into it
even now. The belief is that it will not affect us one way or the
other, but we will know later today or tomorrow.
-rpg-
∂02-Dec-85 1135 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU ANSI/ISO and Hotel Strike
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 2 Dec 85 11:34:52 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 2 Dec 85 14:28:20-EST
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1985 14:28 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12163956376.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To: rpg@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: ANSI/ISO and Hotel Strike
In-reply-to: Msg of 2 Dec 1985 13:54-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>
Some further thoughts on the ISO thing:
I'm simply not sure whether or not having an ISO standard Lisp
makes any difference, either in general or anymore. It seems
we are at the crossroads as to whether Common Lisp remains the
`property' of us (the CLG at large) or whether it is part of the
world at large.
Maybe the question is whether Common Lisp remains the property of the
active Lisp community (largely in the U.S.) or whether it is taken over
by European fanatics who don't like Lisp anyway and who have nothing
better to do than to play political games with committees.
There are two possible courses: Leave standardization alone, and
go after it.
Leaving ISO and ANSI alone is not the same as leaving "standardization"
alone. The IBM/PC is a standard, for example. Official standardization
is just one kind of standardization, and is generally the weakest kind.
If we ignored all standardization, that makes
a statement against official standards and also tells the world
we are above the normal hue and cry. Is that what we want?
Standards are fine for plugs, character codes, and floppy-disk formats.
I don't think that anything as large and complex (not to mention
political) as Common Lisp has ever been successfully standardized by an
official committee of this sort. Big things get standardized by brute
force and a committee maybe blesses them later. Indeed, Common Lisp is
already somewhat unique among huge systems in that the standard did not
come from one single company as a fait accompli, but was discussed by
many participants. I think the ARPANET was a key ingedient in making
this possible, and that the ISO machinery is unsuitable. Can you
imagine doing what we did if everyone had to fly off to face-to-face
meetings twice a year and to communicate by international airsnail at
other times? Can you imagine the process going smoothly in the future
under those conditions, even now that we all agree on the lowest-level
stuff?
Suppose we start down the ISO route and it gets bad, can't we simply
drop it or lose interest enough so that it isn't a hassle for us anymore?
In other words, what is the downside of ignoring the standardization
issue?
I see two downsides: first, we've got work still to do in
standardizations and the last thing we need is to saddle ourselves with
a lot of extraneous bureaucratic restrictions on how this work will be
done; second, if the ISO process gets our participation and produces
something close to Common Lisp but not close enough to satisfy us, then
we've created confusion as to which is the "real" Common Lisp. A
strictly French effort in which they do their own thing would not
confuse the issues in this way. Getting ISO to approve Common Lisp
exactly as we define it is probably not possible (am I wrong about
this?), and a near miss is the worst possible outcome.
If someone wants to do all the work to capture the ISO process and
believes that we can either get true Common Lisp approved or walk out
cleanly, that's OK with me, but it's a big effort for dubious gain in my
opinion.
-- Scott
∂02-Dec-85 1153 RPG Exposing My Machiavellan Tendencies
To: quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Suppose France gains control of the ISO process, and suppose they
do something that is the direct marriage of what they want and Common Lisp.
I think this is both the most likely outcome and the best outcome we
can expect. They want a subset - at least that's what Chailloux wants.
What we end up with as an ISO standard is a smallish subset of Common Lisp.
France does something in computer science, and they do build/distribute/sell
computers. So what does someone in Europe do to be `safe' when writing
Lisp code? He codes in the intersection, which happens to be the standard.
What does someone in the US do when he codes for US machines that are
used in Europe and when the code will be shipped there? He codes in the
intersection.
This creates confusion in a lot of peoples's minds. What I would like
to propose is that we start down the ISO path, in order to block the
thrust of the French bid. Then we delay on the official front while
continuing on on the informal front as we have been. Eventually we can
make the right decision, or perhaps we can delay until it is clear no
decision is needed.
The idea is to shield our normal activities from the potential irritation
that a French ISO bid could cause.
-rpg-
∂02-Dec-85 1209 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU Exposing My Machiavellan Tendencies
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 2 Dec 85 12:09:18 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 2 Dec 85 15:09:11-EST
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1985 15:09 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12163963846.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
Cc: quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Exposing My Machiavellan Tendencies
In-reply-to: Msg of 2 Dec 1985 14:53-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>
OK, the best outcome would be to get ISO to agree to accept Common Lisp
is is and to track changes. Not feasible.
The second best outcomes (a tie) are either to screw up the ISO process
so that nothing comes out of it, or to get the French to do something so
different from Common Lisp that nobody will injure himself by trying to
straddle the fence.
The bad case is that the ISO thing ends up looking very much like Common
Lisp, but that it is different enough (perhaps by being a subset) to
cause real trouble, confusion, and to split the Common Lisp market
because of that.
The worst possible case is that we cooperate a little bit with this, but
end up in the "bad case" anyway, because then it lends legitimacy to
this mutant offspring.
So we do have something to talk about: how do we prevent the bad case
without wasting a lot of everyone's valuable time and without falling
into the worst possible case. But we can't talk about trying to stall
this process in public, so we have to pretend that if we participate at
all we are going for full acceptance of Common Lisp. A tricky business.
-- Scott
∂02-Dec-85 1250 DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA ANSI/ISO
Received: from SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 2 Dec 85 12:50:27 PST
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 224838; Mon 2-Dec-85 15:46:53-EST
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 85 15:54 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: ANSI/ISO
To: Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU, quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12163920553.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Message-ID: <851202155411.1.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
I agree with what you say about ISO. We should spend at least a little
time at the meeting, though, finding out just what is the worst that
would happen if ISO goes its own way. In other words, we should get
answers to the questions you asked in your mail.
∂02-Dec-85 1622 DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA ANSI/ISO
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 2 Dec 85 16:22:26 PST
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 365743; Mon 2-Dec-85 18:36:33-EST
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 85 18:43 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: ANSI/ISO
To: quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12163956376.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Message-ID: <851202184313.6.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Hmm. I sympathize with all the points I've heard. It's a hard
question.
Let me toss in one more anti-official-standards point: because there
are so many standards organizations running around, we have to worry
about whether there might be an ISO standard, an ANSI standard, an IEEE
standard, a CCITT standard, and so on. The network protocol world is
the canonical example of this problem. The latest things I've been
hearing about is a new protocol that's basically a lot like IP/TCP, but
incompatible, called MAP, which is a General Motors standard (no
kidding) that has become popular in the factory-automation world. The
world of networking also has HDLC, SDLC, and LAPB, which are nearly
identical, but not quite, and sponsored by different organizations, one
of which is IBM.
In light of this, I am particularly worried by Scott's poing that we
might end up with "original CL" and "ISO CL", which are pretty close but
not quite the same.
I am tempted to add "not the same, because some random French LeLisp
people wanted to have some say in the standard, so they changed the
order of arguments to some functions randomly just so that they could
feel that they were among the creators of the standard." Everyone wants
to be one of the creators of the standard. For example, T.I. has been
broadly advertising that they were heavily involved in the design of
Common Lisp. I hate the idea of opening it up again just so that more
people can wear "I created Common Lisp" buttons.
There's no point in having a language standard if it is in a continual
state of redesign. While I don't know any particular horror stories, I
do know that these things typically take significant amount of time,
like several years, before they come out with standards. I'd hate to
have to say "wait, world, there isn't actually any Common Lisp standard
yet, wait for the ISO committee." This is a fast-moving field; we
really cannot wait that long.
Now, in the past, we've mentioned having a "Common Lisp 89" or whatever,
a second generation language standard to come out in several years.
Perhaps if we (or the new charter group) still believe that, we should
consider dealing with ISO and/or ANSI.
I understand Steele has been involved in the ANSI C committee; perhaps
he could comment on all this in light of his experience.
∂02-Dec-85 2037 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU Charter stuff
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 2 Dec 85 20:37:21 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Mon 2 Dec 85 23:37:16-EST
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1985 23:37 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12164056344.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To: quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Cc: fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Charter stuff
In his recent mail, Dick Gabriel suggested that there are three
proposals we might want to discuss: the "full-blown" proposal, the
"minimalist" proposal, and the "club" proposal. I see the issues a bit
differently, I guess. Basically, I see three almost orthogonal issues
and one big problem.
Issue 1: Do we want an organization to do only what is absolutely
necessary, or do we want it to provide a range of services to the
community?
This is the difference between the "full blown" and "minimalist"
proposals. A minimal organization would basically just provide a
technical committee, some way of electing the committee, a communication
channel for questions, discussion, and decisions, a legal entity that
can own those things that belong to "the Common Lisp community". The
other services that a "full blown" organization might provide would
include keeping the archives in some sort of order, maintaining and
distributing a public-domain library including such things as the Spice
Lisp and Hemlock sources, perhaps a newsletter, communication by mail to
those not on electronic networks, maintaining and distributing a
validation suite, maybe running the actual validations, and so on.
To provide these services would require a full-time employee or two and
would cost maybe $150K/year if done within some existing organization
(sharing office space and some other facilities). In the past, CMU has
done some of this stuff, others have done some, and some important
things have just not been done. I'm pretty sick of dealing with this
stuff at CMU without adequate administrative support, so if nothing else
is set up, things are soon going to get much worse -- no more tapes sent
to people, etc. If the Common Lisp association does these things, we
will have to raise big bucks either through corporate dues or grants.
At one point the DARPA folks suggested that they would give a contract
to ISI to do these things, but nothing seems to be happening on that
front and ISI doesn't seem to have much enthusiasm for the task. Maybe
this idea can be resurrected; if so, I think a minimalist organization
is preferable to a heavy one.
Issue 2: Who decides who is to decide?
We probably want a rather small technical committee that would operate
by discussing issues with the community at large (that part of it
reachable by netmail, anyway) but that would then be able to make
decisions about the language without having to get 100% consensus.
Everyone could discuss (cajole, threaten, whatever) but only a few
people would actually make the decisions. The question is how we elect
a technical committee.
The obvious move is to let anyone join the organization as an individual
member who wants to pay the dues (not too much, maybe $20/year), and to
let these individual members elect the technical committee -- one
member, one vote. The big problem here is to ensure that this
democratic process is not subverted (e.g. by some company packing the
membership by signing up all their employees) and that an influx of
people from some odd corner of the community does not carry Common Lisp
off in directions that the original community and the major
manufacturers do not want to see it go in. I can imagine an invasion of
hobbyist types, for example, who might decide that the most important
thing is to be sure that Common Lisp fits easily into 640K of memory.
Such people should have a voice, but it is not clear that every random
hobbyist who has paid his $20 should have as large a voice as someone
who is using Lisp in a serious professional way.
So the real question is, if we go with a democratically elected
technical committee, whether we need some extra machinery to keep
the language true to its original goals. Some possible responses:
A. This might once have been a problem, when major groups were trying to
bend Common Lisp to be closer to their old Lisps, but is no longer an
issue.
B. The technical committee should be elected, but the manufacturers and
other corporations should have a veto power of some sort. This was the
genesis of my earlier proposal that we have corporate members (filtered
by their willingness to pay big dues) and that 2/3 or 3/4 of these
corporate members are sufficent to veto actions by the technical
committee. The very existence of this veto would make it useless for
any one company to try to pack the membership and take over the
technical committee.
C. We could try to write into the organization's constitution all of
those things that we never want anyone to change. This has always
struck me as infeasible.
D. We could pick a few well-known people who have been involved in the
Common Lisp effort from the start and make them a sort of "supreme
court". For the first few years of the organization's existence, these
people (by a 2/3 vote or something like that) would have the right to
veto any changes that they view as contrary to the original goals and
ongoing well-being of the language. There is a problem of how to
get this set up -- if the initial supreme court is elected
democratically, all of the same potential problems come up here as with
the technical committee. See below for one possible solution.
Issue 3: How do we bootstrap such an organization?
I think that we are going to have a hell of a time getting consensus on
any detailed plan for an organization at the Boston meeting or via the
network. In a group that large and diverse, there will always be
somebody who wants to quibble at length about something. And if we
don't have either a consensus or a pre-existing constitution, how do we
settle these issues? Who gets to vote? Who has a veto? The Boston
meeting will not fairly represent the community as a whole because of
geography -- the local companies will have many more people there.
One thought I have had (RPG calls it the "club" proposal, but I think
that this is bad PR), is that a few of us get together and form an
organization ourselves. We would do our best to come up with a plan
that the community will approve of, and we can ask individuals or the
whole community for advice, but in the end we make the decisions. "We"
in this case is the five of us, plus any others we decide to invite into
the process at this stage. We elect an initial set of officers and a
technical committee. Guy would agree that future editions of his book
would reflect Common Lisp as defined by this organization. Then, once
this is all in place, we open up membership to anyone who wants to join.
Now, this organization has no power or authority at the start, except
what it derives from the "big names" who are associated with. But if a
lot of companies join and announce that they intend to follow this
organization's definition of Common Lisp, then it quickly becomes the de
facto setter of standards. If anyone doesn't like some detail of the
way we set up the organization, they can stay out and pout, but they
can't induce paralysis.
What gives us the right to go off and set this up the wy we want to?
Well, everyone has the same right, but our attempt to do this might
stick because of our stature in the Common Lisp community. And this is
not so unusual; most new organizations start this way, with a small
nucleus of people who decide to set something up. As I understand it,
AAAI came about when a few of the major people in the field of AI
decided that there ought to be a national AI organization and just went
off and created it. By the time most of us heard about this
orgainzation, it was a fait accompli, with a constitution and a set of
officers already in place.
Anyway, this is something to think about. I don't see any good
alternative. We don't have to be sneaky about this. We can ask the
people at the meeting what they think about this, which is not the same
as asking their permission.
This is orthogonal to the heavy/lightweight issue, except that we
obviously couldn't offer many services until we have some money coming
in. It is also orthogonal to the issue of whether we need to build in
some sort of stabilization mechanism, except that it gives us an easy
way to create a "supreme court" effect if we want to. The idea is that
we would elect an initial technical committee before we open up
membership to the world at large, and we install a trustworthy set of
people for fairly long terms. The new membership could elect new people
as vacancies open up, but even in the worst case it would take several
years before new people would outnumber our initial handpicked group.
Probably this is all the stability we need.
MAJOR PROBLEM: how can we protect the people prominently involved in
this organization from harassment by lawyers.
Sooner or later, some decision is going to go against some company that
likes to use the legal system as a weapon. Or maybe some group on the
outside decides to try to destroy Common Lisp by suing the organization
and the visible people in it. Even if the lawsuit is totally without
merit, a large company can destroy a random private citizen by forcing
him to spend a fortune on legal fees. Unless the organization has both
the commitment and the resources to protect the people involved from
lawsuits, I for one am not going to expose myself to that kind of risk.
(CMU has some sort of indemnification policy for its faculty, but it is
vague and probably worthless. I don't think it would cover something
this far from my "usual" duties.) Even to get some lawyer to explain to
us what the risks and possible defenses really are would cost quite a
bit. I'm not sure how big a war chest would be adequate, or whather
there is some way to insure against this kind of threat, or whether some
company or other organization would be able to shield us while we set up
some sort of organization.
Anyway, this has to be dealt with BEFORE we do anything else, and
especially before we try to start an organization by ourselves as
individuals. I don't know what to do about this. Ever since Beau Sheil
and Xerox started making legal threats last year I've been really afraid
of this. I've got no access to lawyers to discuss this problem unless I
spend my own money, which I'm not eager to do. It's a shame that this
kind of nonsense has to enter into our considerations, but that's the
way it is. Ideas?
-- Scott
∂03-Dec-85 2030 RPG More on Issues
To: quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Scott has raised what I consider the most important issues. From what
I understand, if the `club' is a corporation (of a certain type?), then
the corporation can be sued, but not the individuals. This way
Xerox can destroy the club, but not us.
Would Xerox (for example) want to destroy us? I doubt it. Suppose
we form no organizationat all; suppose Lucid stays friends
with Symbolics. Then Lucid and Symbolics can decide to proceed with
Common Lisp as we and they see fit. With even this coalition, people have
to follow or be out of the game. If we add DEC to the coalition, all
doubt about the efficacy of this plan disappear.
The point is that Common Lisp is almost as much of a defacto standard
as could be expected under any situation - witness: Xerox and Fateman
(Franz) have caved in. Given that, if some corporation or private individual
brought a suit, it would simply smear the corporation's image.
The situation was different before everyone recognized Common Lisp as
*the* Lisp. Before that, we could have been sued for trying to establish
a standard. Now anyone who tried to `break' the standard would be
in a bad situation.
So, maybe the right thing to do is nothing, except to pretend that there
is a Common Lisp Group that is making decisions somewhere.
-rpg-
∂04-Dec-85 0833 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU More on Issues
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 4 Dec 85 08:32:57 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Wed 4 Dec 85 11:32:13-EST
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1985 11:32 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12164448639.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To: quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: More on Issues
In-reply-to: Msg of 3 Dec 1985 23:30-EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG at SU-AI.ARPA>
First, let me say that I don't think that Xerox is the most likely
source of legal problems any more. I mentioned their name only because
they were the ones who brought the whole issue up with their
pre-Monterey threats. When the legal shit hits the fan, it will
probably come from some completely unforseen quarter.
I would be very pleased if Dick's view of incorporation protecting us
all were the case. Maybe it is -- without having a long (expensive)
talk with a lawyer, I don't know. My suspicion is that the individuals
could also be sued, as individuals. It would be hard for the assailant
to win that suit, but there is just enough precedent that it wouldn't be
considered totally groundless. And that means that there would be large
legal fees incurred by the individuals, and a strong incentive to
settle. Big corporations solve this by creating policies that if
individuals get sued as a result of their activity on behalf of the
corporation, the corporation defends the case and pays any judgement.
There also are various kinds of liability insurance covering corproate
officers. But for any of this to be credible protection, the
corporation has to have enough resources to be an effective shield.
Maybe our "home" corporations (Lucid, Symbolics, CMU,...) would cover
each of us, but that's not the usual pattern if you go off and do
something on the side, so we'd better get firm assurances to that
effect. As I said, CMU's policy on this is vague and does not inspire
me to stick my neck out.
Maybe I'm wrong about about all this. We've got to find out.
I think that the "club" model, in which there is a formal decision
mechanism (wherever it came from) to which various groups can pledge
their allegiance, is very different from the sort of informal situation
Dick describes (which is what we have now). With nobody really knowing
what the rules are, we either do not make any progress on controversial
things or we open things up for raw power politics -- whoever decides to
be the nastiest wins the decision. I have found the last year to be
extremely uncomfortable, so I am not enthusiastic about the "do nothing"
suggestion, though I guess that is another alternative that we might
want to discuss.
-- Scott
∂05-Dec-85 1649 DLW@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA Charter stuff
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 5 Dec 85 16:49:00 PST
Received: from CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 368382; Thu 5-Dec-85 18:18:24-EST
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 85 18:25 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Subject: Charter stuff
To: Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU, quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12164056344.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Message-ID: <851205182509.5.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Issue 1: I agree that we should go with the minimalist organization. In
addition to the reasons you presented, I add the following: (1) it's
much easier to get a smaller thing off the ground; (2) we can always
gradually grow it later, if things work out well.
Issue 2: Who decides? This is very hard. On point A, I do think it's
still an issue. Just read the mail. As I've groused before, everyone
wants to be the designer of Common Lisp. On point C, I agree that it's
not feasible. What I am most concerned about is not so much the
individual decisions (they're important too) as the general policies
that will guide the individual decisions.
Issue 3: I like your idea for having the five of us bootstrap an
organization and le it become the de facto organization. The more I
think about large meetings of diverse individuals, the more I think that
this is the way most likely to produce effective results. There's just
one thing: the meeting is coming up very soon now. Can we really put
something together before the meeting? If not, then what will happen
during all those hours allocated to discuss the charter? (Actually,
even if we do put something together, then what happens at the meeting?)
Lawyers: I think we have no choice but to consult a lawyer about this.
We will therefore need an initial dollop of cash. After an initial
consultation, we'll know more and we can decide what to do next. Since
we're all in different places, I'm not sure exactly how to arrange this
physically, unless you want to try to do it sometime next week. I'm
pretty sure I can get good recommendations for lawyers in the area,
though whether I could get in to see one on such short notice I don't
know.
∂05-Dec-85 1728 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU ISO
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 5 Dec 85 17:27:50 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Thu 5 Dec 85 20:24:17-EST
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1985 20:24 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12164807653.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To: quinquevirate@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: ISO
First, a minor item: I got a copy of CMU's professional liability policy
today, and it appears that they eliminated most of the vagueness last
summer. So if I am doing something for the good of the community as a
representative of CMU, and if I am not being paid for it (except for
reasonable expenses), and if I believe that I am operating within the
law, and if I get sued, CMU is supposed to pay legal expenses and any
judgement or settlement. The CMU trustees could decide to abrogate this
policy, but that's a very small risk that I am willing to assume. So I
feel a lot better about my own legal risks if I should take part in some
organization. I hope that all of you are similarly covered by your
respective employers.
More important: I had a long talk with Bob Mathis today. He's the guy
who has coordinated the process of turning Ada into an ISO standard, and
who has taken the first steps toward doing the same thing for Common
Lisp. He seems to have a very good grasp of the whole process. He's
also very persuasive.
Mathis says that he is confident that we could form a standards
committee within ISO that could get Common Lisp ratified pretty much as
is, and that would fairly represent the community as it now exists in
considering future changes. For example, we could get all the right
people appointed to the technical committee that makes the decisions,
and this technical committee would be able to do their work via the
arpanet, just as we do it now. I was quite skeptical about all this,
but Mathis has been there and seems to ahve all the right connections
within ANSI and ISO. If we want him to, he is willing to play a role in
this as the "convener" or the committee, and (with some help from Steve
Squires) to handle the political process of getting this thing set up
within ISO.
Well, as I said earlier, the best possible case is if we can actually
get ISO to bless Common Lisp as we would like it to be defined. I
didn't think this was possible, but after talking with Mathis, I think
it may be possible after all. In fact, if we go this way, we may not
need any other formal organization -- the ISO technical committee would
be able to speak with authority on what Common Lisp is, or at least on
what they are going to recommend for adoption by ISO when the time
comes. Of course, we'll still need all those services, but if DARPA
goes ahead with the plans to set up ISI to do this job, maybe we can
do that without a separate organization as well.
It's very attractive to believe that we could do this in the "right" way
and avoid having to create yet another bureaucratic organization in the
world. I'm not sure that I believe this yet, but I think that it would
be worthwhile to introduce the ISO possibility early in the Boston
meeting and to explore this option throughly before we spend too much
time talking about a separate organization for Common Lisp. This may be
worth a shot.
Of course, if people come through with enough of those horror stories
that Dick asked for, then this whole idea is a non-starter.
-- Scott
∂06-Dec-85 1223 jeff%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK ISO Standard
Received: from CS.UCL.AC.UK by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Dec 85 12:23:21 PST
Received: from aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk by 44d.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK via Janet with NIFTP
id a009085; 2 Dec 85 20:48 GMT
From: Jeff Dalton <jeff%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 85 20:31:41 GMT
To: common-lisp@su-ai.arpa
Subject: ISO Standard
The 21 November issue of Computer Weekly (one of the UK "computer comics")
had a short article on a recent ISO meeting in Paris, entitled "Three
language standards come closer". One of the languages was C, and the
ISO would use the ANSI draft standard as a basis. The other two were
Prolog and Lisp:
At the Paris meeting ISO also set up a study group to
standardize the artificial intelligence languages, Lisp
and Prolog.
This group is to be chaired by Bob Mathis, who has been
closely involved in the development of the Ada standard.
The artificial intelligence group will report by Sept.
1986 to the ISO on the need for standards in the Lisp
and prolog languages.
They go on to say "the UK and France are already well advanced towards
a Prolog standard" but say nothing more about Lisp.
Does anyone know anything about this?
∂06-Dec-85 1321 FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU ISO Standard
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Dec 85 13:21:07 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Fri 6 Dec 85 16:05:57-EST
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1985 16:05 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12165022759.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To: Jeff Dalton <jeff%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK>
Cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: ISO Standard
In-reply-to: Msg of 2 Dec 1985 15:31-EST from Jeff Dalton <jeff%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk at cs.ucl.ac.uk>
Bob Mathis will be at the Boston meeting and will fill us all in on what
is happening with ISO, and also on what the possibilities are for
getting Common Lisp standardized under ISO in some reasonable way.
After some discussion with Mathis, I think that the idea of cooperating
in a serious way with the ISO standardization effort may be a good idea
after all. We'll see what develops in Boston.
-- Scott
∂06-Dec-85 1600 FORD%ti-csl.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA Re: New, Improved Agenda
Received: from CSNET-RELAY.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 6 Dec 85 15:57:51 PST
Received: from ti-csl by csnet-relay.csnet id ab23865; 6 Dec 85 18:45 EST
Date: 6 Dec 1985 1643-CST
From: Steve <Ford%CSL60%ti-csl.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Subject: Re: New, Improved Agenda
To: RPG%su-ai.arpa@csnet-relay.arpa
cc: Ford%CSL60%ti-csl.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Your message of 25-Nov-85 1915-CST
Received: from csl60 by ti-csl; Fri, 6 Dec 85 16:58 CST
Sperry Corporation, as the vendor of the Sperry Explorer, will be sending
three representatives to the Common Lisp Meeting. They are John Blasdale,
Rick Dondo, and myself.
Jay Franzo
-------
gregor.pa@xerox/su
Meeting
I think the ComonLoops stuff went quite well last week. I think your talk
went a long way towards dispelling fears about it being a strange,
incomprehensible beast - that is, I think you did a good job. Danny
helped by beingwell-spoken and wise throughout.
-rpg-
bobrow.pa@xerox/su
Meeting etc
I think CommonLoops was well-received. I think Gregor's presentation
was good, and I think that your calmly worded and presented comments
helped a great deal to waylay a complexity frenzy that might have
started up.
There are some issues regarding ISO that I'd like to talk to you about,
probably in person.
-rpg-
"hilfingr%renoir"@Berkeley/su
Back Stabbing
I was somewhat disturbed (but not angered) by the question you asked me
regarding whether the SPUR sponsors were talking to us behind your back.
I am aware that DARPA in its current incarnation has engaged in such
tactics in the past. The one case I know of involves a contractor
who is, I believe, acting contrary to the technical specifications of
their contract.
I would like to point out that Lucid does not do business secretively
or by sneaky negotiations behind peoples' backs. This might be the
strategy of other companies, but not us. We have projects for groups
such that those groups have asked for confidentiality, but that is the
extent of it.
I hope that you will be able to separate the actions of DARPA in going
behind peoples' backs from those of Lucid, who might seem to DARPA as a
way to get things done in a hurry. I presume that you were upset at the
possibility that DARPA was doing such a thing and that you weren't upset
at me or Lucid, and this message is simply intended to make sure you
understood that Lucid does not ask, will not ask, and never has asked
DARPA to have us step in to perform contractor's job.
In any event, I'm very enthusiastic about the SPUR project, and I have
a lot of respect for George Taylor. If you need anything from Lucid -
particularly if you'd like to make a presentation and get our comments
on the design - please feel free to call me.
-rpg-
ricci@xerox/su
Meeting
We should probably talk about the meeting and how Xerox can be
part of the ISO work. I think there are two groups, the technical
and the strategic committees. It would be appropriate for you to
be on the strategic committee (assuming I understand the committee
correctly), but someone technical needs to be on the technical committee.
I think we should discuss this issue in person.
I want to report that CommonLoops went over very well, and that Gregor
and Danny did a great job.
-rpg-
∂16-Dec-85 0326 cfry%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA Aux common lisp mailing lists
Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 16 Dec 85 03:24:53 PST
Received: from MIT-JANIS by MIT-OZ via Chaosnet; 16 Dec 85 06:24-EST
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 85 06:25 EST
From: Christopher Fry <cfry@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Aux common lisp mailing lists
To: rpg@SU-AI.ARPA
Message-ID: <851216062516.6.CFRY@JANIS.AI.MIT.EDU>
Please send me a list of the auxiliary common lisp mailing
lists. I think I'd like to get on a few.
.....
Lucid's offer to give away diagnostic code changed the entire
mood of the Common Lisp meeting from standoffish to
cooperative. Having written a fair number of tests myself,
I understand what a significant piece of work this is.
Thanks!
As I offered at the meeting,
I hope to help on designing a standardized format for
such tests. I'm sure you'll have some valuable input to
the process.
∂16-Dec-85 1350 hplabs!snyder@hplabsd meeting reactions
Received: from HPLABS.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 16 Dec 85 13:48:53 PST
Received: by hplabsd ; Mon, 16 Dec 85 13:48:15 pst
Date: Monday, December 16, 1985 13:33:18
From: snyder@hplabsd
Subject: meeting reactions
To: rpg@su-ai
X-Sent-By-Nmail-Version: 04-Nov-84 17:14:46
quinquevirate/su
In Fact...
... moments after I sent the last note I got this unsolicited comment
from Alan Snyder of HP:
I would like to say that I found the second Common Lisp meeting to be much
better organized and more productive than the first. I am at least hopeful
that things will progress...
However, I must say that I did not find Bob Balzer's report on his development
environment to be at all appropriate. There are better forums for such a
report (where people specifically interested in programming environments would
more likely be), and the report occupied valuable time better used for more
pressing matters. I recall that a similar thing happened in Monterey. I hope
that the next Common Lisp meeting will not be misused as a forum for Bob to
present his research proposals and projects.
Alan
-------
∂16-Dec-85 1443 hilfingr@renoir.berkeley.edu Re: Back Stabbing
Received: from UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 16 Dec 85 14:43:16 PST
Received: by ucbvax.berkeley.edu (5.31/1.7)
id AA04075; Mon, 16 Dec 85 12:03:23 PST
Received: by renoir (5.31/5.16)
id AA13074; Mon, 16 Dec 85 11:40:50 PST
From: hilfingr@renoir.berkeley.edu (Paul Hilfinger)
Message-Id: <8512161940.AA13074@renoir>
To: Dick Gabriel <RPG@su-ai.arpa>
Subject: Re: Back Stabbing
In-Reply-To: Your message of 14 Dec 85 1759 PST.
<8512150158.AA18252@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Date: 16 Dec 85 11:40:48 PST (Mon)
Dick,
Perhaps in trying to keep my question short, I made it more disturbing
than I intended. I was simply tracking down a rumor that had reached
us third hand to the effect that DARPA had contacted Lucid on this
matter. The rumor seemed a little odd, inasmuch as the SPUR CL
implementation, while it may not be going as fast as I personally
would like, is nevertheless ahead of schedule. Our contract monitor
was out last week, and I felt it would be wise to check out such a
rumor before confronting him. Of course, even had the rumor turned
out to be true, the responsibility would have lain with DARPA, not
Lucid, and I hope you didn't think my question accusatory.
I suspect that the originator of this rumor may have gotten us
confused with the MIPS people; at least there has also been talk of
Lucid doing a CL implementation for their machine.
Thanks for taking the time to follow up. In fact, our CL is
technically a breadboard implementation, and at some future time, we
may well want a re-implementation for either the current version of
SPUR or some revision of it. Needless to say, Lucid would be an
obvious contractor to approach.
Paul
Paul,
Sounds good. I guess I'm somewhat in disagreement with DARPA requiring
people like you to do any significant Common Lisp implementation on hardware
like yours, because I think you can find out the interesting scientific
facts from a toy Lisp implementation. In other words, implementing most of
Common Lisp is a waste of time for you. Similarly, the project BBN in actually
doing - parallel Scheme - is perfect, but DARPA is forcing them to do
Common Lisp instead.
DARPA has talked to us about helping BBN out, but DARPA told BBN that DARPA
was having this discussion; in fact, Don Allen came to Lucid to talk about
it himself. BBN wanted to get our sources, so we asked BBN to think of some
way we could help them without the sources, and I suggested some alternatives.
At the CL meeting last week, I basically offered to put our Lisp on the
Butterfly for (almost) free, but Allen wasn't interested. I had supposed you
had heard a bastardization of this story which was confusing wrt Butterfly
versus Spur.
In any event, we'd like to hear a presentation from you folks if you ever
get the time.
-rpg-
Ricci.pa@xerox/su
Possible Members
Bobrow Xerox
VanMelle Xerox
Masinter Xerox
Griss HP
Kessler Utah
Greenblatt LMI
Foderaro Franz
Pratt LMI
Barber Gold Hill
vanRoggen DEC
Wegman IBM
Fateman Berkeley/Franz
Hedrick Rutgers
McCarthy Stanford (invented Lisp)
Clinger Indiana
Meehan Yale
Rees MIT
Bawden MIT
∂18-Dec-85 0650 kessler%utah-orion@utah-cs.arpa CL Meeting
Received: from UTAH-CS.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 18 Dec 85 06:50:49 PST
Received: from utah-orion.ARPA by utah-cs.ARPA (5.5/4.40.2)
id AA04243; Wed, 18 Dec 85 07:51:25 MST
Received: by utah-orion.ARPA (5.5/4.40.2)
id AA10563; Wed, 18 Dec 85 07:51:21 MST
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 85 07:51:21 MST
From: kessler%utah-orion@utah-cs.arpa (Robert Kessler)
Message-Id: <8512181451.AA10563@utah-orion.ARPA>
To: rpg@su-ai.arpa
Subject: CL Meeting
From MAILER-DAEMON@UTAH-CS Wed Dec 18 07:27:12 1985
Received: from utah-cs.ARPA by utah-orion.ARPA (5.5/4.40.2)
id AA10506; Wed, 18 Dec 85 07:27:07 MST
Received: from utah-orion.ARPA by utah-cs.ARPA (5.5/4.40.2)
id AA04193; Wed, 18 Dec 85 07:26:59 MST
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 85 07:26:55 MST
From: MAILER-DAEMON@UTAH-CS (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
Message-Id: <8512181426.AA04193@utah-cs.ARPA>
To: <kessler@utah-orion>
----- Transcript of session follows -----
>>> RCPT To:<rpg@sail.arpa>
<<< 550 I'm not host "SAIL.ARPA", in "RCPT To:<rpg@sail.arpa>"
550 <rpg@sail.arpa>... User unknown
----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: from utah-orion.ARPA by utah-cs.ARPA (5.5/4.40.2)
id AA04191; Wed, 18 Dec 85 07:26:59 MST
Received: by utah-orion.ARPA (5.5/4.40.2)
id AA10502; Wed, 18 Dec 85 07:26:55 MST
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 85 07:26:55 MST
From: kessler@utah-orion (Robert Kessler)
Message-Id: <8512181426.AA10502@utah-orion.ARPA>
To: rpg@sail.arpa
Subject: CL Meeting
This is a summary prepared by Stan Shebs and myself (he did most of the
writing). With repect to the Register Allocator stuff, I am still reading
the thesis. As soon as Jeff puts in my suggested changes, I'll pass along
a copy (probably will be a couple more weeks). If you are in a hurry, you
(or Rod) might want to give Jeff a call to talk about it (Jeff Knell - MS
Grad student - (801)581-8866). He's off in Mexico right now, and should
be back a little before Christmas.
Bob.
----------------
Here's a quicky report summarizing my impressions at Boston. I didn't
take notes, so there's probably holes...
The first agenda item was the "charter". The issue is what should the
official future of Common Lisp be, in terms of supporting organizations,
maintaining the standard, determining which changes to accept, collecting
yellow pages, etc. The options presented ranged from nothing to a
corporation that would keep fairly tight control over CL. Bob Mathis (of
Ada AJPO infamy :-) filled us in on the benefits of ISO and ANSI
standardship for CL. The good points of having an ISO CL are its
"official" status that would discourage deviations and promote
portability, a specification not in the hands of some publisher, DARPA
support, and of course some international agreement as to what Lisp is.
It was pointed out that the Europeans were working on a Lisp proposal that
was not CL through ISO. The government has a rule that if something is
standardized, they must require that standard. Therefore, it was a good
argument to try and push CL through the ISO instead of some other proposal.
The bad point seems to be that the US has only one vote for acceptance of
a standard and of revisions to it, and the Europeans don't like CL in its
present state. Sandra and I talked to Jerome Chailloux (Mr. LeLisp), and
at the very least an acceptable standard would need a subset and a formal
specification. He will talk to the European Lisp standards committee
(which meets once a month) and suggest that Utah be allowed to observe or
some such. Apparently we are the only American Lisp group they trust!
Anyway, when the whole question of ISO standardization was put, there was
basically unanimous agreement that Bob Mathis be the "convenor" (an ISO
term; sort of means administrative chairman) and that a technical
committee be put together consisting of the Gang of 5, Steve Squires of
DARPA, lead by Bob Mathis. The committe was to create a true committee
consisting of some additional people to be nominated in the
near future, as well as some European representatives. I might point out
that if the European's reservations about CL had been known when the
decision was taken, some other course might have been chosen! As it
stands, the decision was to go along with ISO for 6 months, then do a
breakpoint on whether to continue.
Another part of the charter discussion as well as the validation discussion
Monday afternoon involved the "support organization", whose purpose was
to keep the most up-to-date spec, maintain the Yellow Pages, and to
maintain the validation suite. It appears that USC/ISI will be this
organization, and that Bob Balzer will be the head person; they will
almost certainly be getting money from DARPA for this work. After much
discussion and mutual recrimination, it was decided that the validation
suite would be public domain, freely available, and that the vendors
would contribute their test suites in order to get things started.
This was a dramatic turnaround from the initial situation where most
representatives wanted some sort of concrete compensation or a fair
exchange - a sort of "I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours"
situation...
Tuesday started off with Kent Pitman presenting a cleaned-up version
of the Symbolics error system as the proposed error handling mechanism
for CL. It introduces the notion of condition objects which contain
information about the error and procedures for what to do with it.
While I thought it seemed overly elaborate (in the traditional Symbolics
way), it wasn't clear how anything smaller could handle the usual
situations without being tailored to handle *only* those situations.
I liked the flexibility where one might actually be able to register
an error, substitute something reasonable, and keep going, without the
need for user interaction, for instance.
The rest of the day we spent talking about three proposals for object
oriented programming - HP Objects, CommonLoops, and New Flavors. Of the
three, only the last was new to me. Symbolics has done a substantial and
surprising rework of Flavors, and in fact it now shares several features
with CommonLoops. The one I liked the most was the abandonment of special
syntaxes for message sending. Instead of (send object message . args),
one says merely (message objects . args). This means that OOP is a way of
implementing things, rather than a pervasive style. It opens up the
possibility of doing cons cells as objects in CL, or more importantly, it
would allow an object-oriented style to deal with the complexities of CL
sequence and numeric functions. For customization, CommonLoops has
metaclasses, while New Flavors has an elaborate declarative language for
method combination. HP Objects requires substantial changes to CL to run
efficiently (Alan Snyder assured us that a portable version requiring no
changes could be implemented - the CL changes are directed toward
efficient support of the system). A Portable CommonLoops in vanilla CL
will be available in January. The consensus was that a minimum of six
months would be required to arrive at a single proposal, probably merging
features of the three existing ones, and there will be a meeting at the
Lisp conference to discuss experiences with the three proposed systems.
Discussion of windows on Wednesday morning was highly unsatisfactory.
It is clear that despite much argument (on the mailing list) about
definitions of terms, that no one has accomplished an adequate distinction
between "graphics", "windows", and "interaction" standards. Lucid
presented some work they were doing which was unashamedly biased towards
bitblt screens on Suns and Symbolics and (maybe) Apollos, but they
were pretty vague on what had actually been done. Someone from
Intellicorp (the KEE people) presented a rather interesting "wish list"
of things they would like to be able to do, which included getting
windows on VT100s and vector displays, then Kent Pitman had a few
slides on a rather declarative window interface that (on the Scribe
analogy) would attempt to satisfy the programmer's wishes, with the
caveat that it might have to do something unpleasant if necessary
(what would you have to do to make Emacs work on an ASR-33?). There's
basically no chance of a standard within a year, and maybe not within
two years. Personally, I got the impression that a window standard
is good, but is relatively independent of any language standard.
Overall the meeting was quite successful - all of the stated agenda
items were brought up, and the necessary decisions were taken.
More than a few people were surprised, particularly those who were
at Monterey last year.
Meeting Expenses
CHARGE PER DAY TOTAL
------------------- ------- -------
Room charge $ 1000 $ 3000
Coffee/tea 440 1320
(8:30 & 2:30)
Audience mikes 36 108
Room setup 20 60
Soda (150 cans) 330
-------
$ 4818
Company Amount
------- ------
Coral 100.00
Lucid 314.54
TI 314.54
Symbolics 314.54
LMI 314.54
Xerox 314.54
HP 314.54
DEC 314.54
Tektronix 314.54
Franz 314.54
Intellicorp 314.54
DG 314.54
Gold Hill 314.54
Prime 314.54
Apollo 314.54
Gould 314.54
type (4818-100)/15
Addresses
Coral:
Christopher Fry
336 Windsor Street
Cambridge, Mass.
TI:
R. Ellen Waldrum
TI
P.O. Box 226015, MS 238
Dallas, Texas 75266
Symbolics:
Daniel Weinreb
11 Cambridge Center
Cambridge, Mass
LMI:
Mache Creeger
Xerox:
Annette Adler
2400 Hanover Street
Palo Alto 94304
HP:
David Matthews
Fort Collins Systems Division
3404 East Harmony Road
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
DEC
Gary Brown
DEC Hudson
77 Reed Road
Hudson, Mass.
Tektronix:
Jeff McKenna
PO Box 1000, Mail Station 60-405
Wilsonville, Or. 97070
Franz:
Fritz Kunze
1141 Harbor Bay Parkway
Alameda, Ca. 94501
Intellicorp:
Gary Fine
DG:
Dan Oldman
62 T.W. Alexander Drive
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27709
Gold Hill:
Jerry Barber
163 Harvard Street
Cambridge, Mass.
Prime:
Ted Gibson
Apollo:
Larry Stabile
Gould:
Brian Marick
1101 E. University Ave.
Urbana, Ill
Dear Sir:
Please find enclosed the bill for the Common Lisp Meeting, held
from December 9 through December 11, 1985, in Boston Massachusetts. The
following is an accounting of the charges for the meeting. Please note that
one individual has contributed $100, and the remaining total is split evenly
among 15 companies:
CHARGE PER DAY TOTAL
------------------- ------- -------
Room charge $ 1000 $ 3000
Coffee/tea 440 1320
(8:30 & 2:30)
Audience mikes 36 108
Room setup 20 60
Soda (150 cans) 330
-------
$ 4818
Lucid, Inc. paid this amount to Marriott's directly, so you check for
$314.53 should be made payable to Lucid, Inc. Thank you for helping make
this meeting the grand success that it was.
Richard P. Gabriel
President
Lucid, Inc.
∂24-Dec-85 0527 mcvax!inria.UUCP!chaillou@seismo.CSS.GOV Hello
Received: from SEISMO.CSS.GOV by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 24 Dec 85 05:25:41 PST
Return-Path: <mcvax!inria.UUCP!chaillou>
Received: from mcvax.UUCP by seismo.CSS.GOV with UUCP; Tue, 24 Dec 85 08:19:05 EST
Received: by mcvax.UUCP; Tue, 24 Dec 85 13:42:20 +0100 (MET)
Received: by mcvax.UUCP; Tue, 24 Dec 85 13:41:58 +0100 (MET)
Received: by inria.UUCP; Tue, 24 Dec 85 12:16:32 -0100 (MET)
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 85 12:16:32 -0100
From: mcvax!inria.UUCP!chaillou@seismo.CSS.GOV (Jerome Chailloux)
Message-Id: <8512241116.AA09190@inria.UUCP>
To: rpg@su-ai.ARPA
Subject: Hello
re: Hello
<< Received: by inria.UUCP; Tue, 24 Dec 85 08:10:57 -0100 (MET)
<< Received: by mcvax.UUCP; Tue, 24 Dec 85 06:57:10 +0100 (MET)
<< Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by seismo.CSS.GOV with SMTP; Mon, 23 Dec 85 19:55:59 EST
<< Message-Id: <8512240055.AA23843@seismo.CSS.GOV>
<< Date: 23 Dec 85 1655 PST
<< From: Dick Gabriel <mcvax!SU-AI.ARPA!RPG>
<< Subject: Hello
<< To: chaillou
<< Status: O
<< I don't want to disturb your holidays, but I am testing this mailing
<< address to determine how long it takes to get to you. Could you mail
<< this entire message back to me so I can see what the delay is?
<< Thanks.
<< -rpg-
It's probably more interesting for you to see the complete path ...
but it's not easy to understand where the time is lost because of
all the different times.
Jerome.