COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00001 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 ENDMK
C⊗;
∂06-Feb-87  2207	RPG   	next x3j13 agenda 
 ∂06-Feb-87  1753	FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU 	next x3j13 agenda 
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 6 Feb 87  17:49:10 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Fri 6 Feb 87 20:48:38-EST
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1987  20:48 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12277009706.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To:   MATHIS@ADA20.ISI.EDU
Cc:   bobrow.pa@XEROX.COM, gls@ZARATHUSTRA.THINK.COM, rpg@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
      scherlis@VAX.DARPA.MIL, squires@VAX.DARPA.MIL,
      willc%tekchips@RELAY.CS.NET
Subject: next x3j13 agenda
In-reply-to: Msg of 3 Feb 1987  17:34-EST from MATHIS at ADA20.ISI.EDU


    That leaves Wed morning for the "cleanup" committee.  That may be
    right for an initial session of that type, but we cann't expect
    much in the way of results.

The compiler committee may actually have more to present than the
cleanup committee.  Rob Maclachlan has produced an excellent proposal
that looks to me like it might fix up almost all the outstanding
compilation issues at one swoop.  Whether the rest of the compiler
committee will want to put this forward as a proposal, I can't say.
Unfortunately, Rob won't be at this meeting (CMU has no budget for such
travel), but perhaps one of the other compiler committee people will
want to present Rob's proposal.

I think that the cleanup committee is going to have to be reorganized so
that some work gets done.  Most of the original members have been
inactive, and some have been downright incommunicado.  I think we're
going to have to oust the inactive members and try to add some new ones
with more time and energy for this task.  I think this will need to be
discussed by mail BEFORE the meeting, rather than trying to solve the
problem in the middle of the conference.  If we just ask for volunteers,
we'll get all the wrong people and things will be even worse than now.
I think that the right move might be to invite some specific people to
join the committee and help out: Rob, Skef Wholey, Eric Benson...people
who might be able to grab a few issues and run with them.

I don't know if there will be anything to report on errors, presentation
of the standard, windows, or the other issues that had committees set up
for them.

Any chance that a more or less final object proposal will be ready for
circulation before the meeting?

I don't see any point in wasting any more time on Lisp1/Lisp2 until
someone has a coherent Macro proposal to present and some better ideas
on how to automate the transition.  No sense plowing the same technical
ground and stating the same opinions over and over again, unless the
plan is to bring this to a final vote and be done with it once and for
all.

-- Scott

∂09-Feb-87  1033	RPG   	Re: next x3j13 agenda  
 ∂09-Feb-87  0851	Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM 	Re: next x3j13 agenda   
Received: from XEROX.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 9 Feb 87  08:51:12 PST
Received: from Cabernet.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 09 FEB 87 08:44:44 PST
Date: 9 Feb 87 08:44 PST
Sender: Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM
From: Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>
Subject: Re: next x3j13 agenda
In-reply-to: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>'s message of Fri,
 6 Feb 87 20:48 EST
To: Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU
cc: MATHIS@ADA20.ISI.EDU, bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM,
 gls@ZARATHUSTRA.THINK.COM, rpg@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
 scherlis@VAX.DARPA.MIL, squires@VAX.DARPA.MIL,
 willc%tekchips@RELAY.CS.NET
Message-ID: <870209-084444-5562@Xerox>

    Any chance that a more or less final object proposal will be
    ready for circulation before the meeting?
We expect to circualte a document to the committee so that it can be
presented.  As to what "final" means, we have mostly agreed on most of
the contents, but what happens when the committee sees it.

  danny

∂19-Feb-87  1216	RPG   	Re: Questions
 ∂19-Feb-87  1113	MATHIS@ADA20.ISI.EDU 	Re: Questions
Received: from ADA20.ISI.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 19 Feb 87  11:13:36 PST
Date: 19 Feb 1987 10:15-PST
Sender: MATHIS@ADA20.ISI.EDU
Subject: Re: Questions
From: MATHIS@ADA20.ISI.EDU
To: RPG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <[ADA20.ISI.EDU]19-Feb-87 10:15:25.MATHIS>
In-Reply-To: The message of 18 Feb 87  0948 PST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

Dick,

I will try to retransmit my prior message on new addresses to
rmaiii at sail etc.

yes slater is the smoker.  try slater@a.isi.edu.

my tendency has been to put people on the list and then check
them later.  I sent letters to about a dozen people on the
physical list and about six of them dropped off.  After the Palo
Alto meeting and the X3 bills, I was planning to question some of
the people on both the electronic and physical lists.

I think of the meetings as partially open.  Additional people
from the same companies as members are welcome as are potential
new members; but not just anybody.  Speaking and participating
might be restticted.

Bob

∂20-Feb-87  0931	RPG   	Re: Address  
 ∂20-Feb-87  0653	MATHIS@ADA20.ISI.EDU 	Re: Address  
Received: from ADA20.ISI.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 20 Feb 87  06:52:52 PST
Date: 20 Feb 1987 06:52-PST
Sender: MATHIS@ADA20.ISI.EDU
Subject: Re: Address  
From: MATHIS@ADA20.ISI.EDU
To: RPG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Cc: Mathis@ADA20.ISI.EDU
Message-ID: <[ADA20.ISI.EDU]20-Feb-87 06:52:52.MATHIS>
In-Reply-To: The message of 19 Feb 87  1230 PST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

Dick, you had about three items:

1. in an attemp to be efficient I cleaned-up my old messages when
I put that address list together for you, so I don't know who
RMAIII is either.  Even though I wish I could answer the
question, this is the first time I have deleted a message that I
later wanted back.  That situation occurs so infrequently, I am
sure I am not deleting enough.

2. about all those names from Symbolics and Xerox.  I am waiting
to see how many they are willing to pay for.  It is also early.
Moon hasn't come to a meeting yet, but is very active; Masinter
wasn't on the original Xerox list and now he is also very active.

3. About the ISO meeting.  Since the French will have the
convenorship, it is natural for them to want to host the first
meeting in France.  The European countries seem to be much more
concerned about invitations to meet in particular countries and
so the French would not invite themselves to Italy.  We can
however point out in our ballot that it would be nice to have the
meeting in Italy and the Italian standards body hopefully would
respond by inviting us.  Another solution is to hold the meeting
in France (Paris or Nice for example) at a time that could fit in
nicely with IJCAI in August.  The reason for this June suggestion
was some other conference they wanted to attach to.  I really
don't have any other information on that.  It may be possible
that we would like to attend that conference anyway.  I don't
know.  In any case We can suggest the August meeting time.  I
didn't know anything about this funding business.

-- Bob