Subject: RE: Just checking in
From: "Shaw, David" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:05:18 -0400

Lynn,

Just a quick note to let you know that my assistant submitted your
nomination package (through Gerry Sussman's account) to the Academy at
the end of last week, and Guy Steele sent me a copy today of the support
letter that he's now submitted (in plenty of time for the deadline) to
the Academy.

The election process is quite a lengthy one, and the results won't be
announced until sometime around the end of April 2010, but we'll be
keeping our fingers crossed in the interim.

Best regards,

David

________________________________

	From: Lynn Conway [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 8:23 AM
	To: Shaw, David
	Subject: Re: Just checking in

	Thanks for the update David. It sounds like everything is going
forward well.
	 
	All the best,
	 
	Lynn

		----- Original Message ----- 
		From: Shaw, David <mailto:[email-masked]>

		To: Lynn Conway <mailto:[email-masked]>  
		Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 3:35 AM
		Subject: RE: Just checking in

		Things are moving ahead nicely so far, Lynn.  The cast
of characters is now assembled (Gerry Sussman as nominator, Guy Steele
as letter-writer, and Henry Fuchs as co-nominator), and Gerry and I have
now completed 1.5 rounds of iteration on the nomination form.  Gerry
appears to be inclined toward working pretty much independently of the
nominee in cases like this, but he's been turning things around quickly
thus far, and I think we're pretty much on target at this point.
		 
		Best regards,
		 
		David

________________________________

			From: Lynn Conway [mailto:[email-masked]] 
			Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 4:45 PM
			To: Shaw, David
			Subject: Just checking in

			Hi David,
			 
			We had a great vacation up on Mackinac Island,
and I've finally caught back up with my online work in time for the 4th
of July weekend.
			 
			Thought I'd check in to see if you've been able
to move forward with the nomination, and if there's anything I can do to
further help on that.
			 
			Meantime, I hope all's well and that you have a
great holiday weekend!
			 
			All the best,
			 
			Lynn

			 

				----- Original Message ----- 
				From: Shaw, David
<mailto:[email-masked]>  
				To: Lynn Conway <mailto:[email-masked]>  
				Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 11:54 AM
				Subject: RE: Possible
nominator/co-nominator and letter writer

				Sounds good to me, Lynn.  I think it
could work either way, but the transparent approach should, among other
things, simplify the process considerably.
				 
				I'll feel Gerry out on the choice of a
co-nominator; the list you provided is very useful in this regard.
				 
				The one-page bio looks good.  I'll
probably want to do a bit of wordsmithing on this and the responses to
the questions on the nomination form just to slightly reduce the wording
overlap, but that's something I should be able easily handle on my own
and/or with Gerry.
				 
				In short, I think I'm now in a position
to move things forward on my own at this point.  I'll keep you posted
and let you know if we need further input from you.
				 
				Regards,
				 
				David

________________________________

					From: Lynn Conway
[mailto:[email-masked]] 
					Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009
9:20 AM
					To: Shaw, David
					Subject: Re: Possible
nominator/co-nominator and letter writer

					Hi David,
					 
					Thanks for the update and these
ideas.
					 
					On reflection, it might be best
to be completely transparent in all this. It's easier to work that way
and be open about how we have and are interacting. 
					 
					You could mention to Gerry that
you approached me and I sent you some stuff - making it easier for you
to get the detailed form going - and that you've edited it a bit, etc.
					 
					You could let him know that I
think he would be a great nominator or co-nominator because he "was
there" at MIT in '78 when the VLSI revolution was getting going, and he
also has the larger perspective on the methods I was using, etc.
					 
					You and he could then feel free
to share with me a few details as you go forward, for example his
thoughts on who might make for a good co-nominator and letter-writer.
That way I could confirm whether they'd be sympathetic choices, etc. 

					Regarding your being a
co-nominator:
					 
					Even though your work and mine
don't overlap on the surface, your prominance and stature in your field
positions you extremely well as a co-nominator. It may even be that
having someone from a bit outside my area - someone who can speak to the
larger picture - would be an advantage at AAAS.
					 
					OTOH, as you and Gerry
brainstorm about this you might think of someone else that would be good
too - perhaps someone he knows well, and whom he's confidant would be
excited to do it.
					 
					Some names that come to mind
(and who might have time to do it) are Paul Gray, Fred Brooks, Guy
Steele, Bob Sproull, Ed Feigenbaum, Fran Allen, Henry Fuchs, Randy Katz,
Ron Rivest, etc.  Folks like Chuck Vest, John Hennessy, etc. would be
great, but they're really busy these days.

					I think that if you point out
the current CompSci membership list when approaching others, it will be
pretty obvious that my name should be there - out of a sense of
fairness, etc. So the main issue may simply be finding one or two folks
who have the time to do this now, and to then shepard it through in a
timely way.
					 
					Meantime I'll put together a
one-page vita for you to use.
					 
					Cheers!
					 
					Lynn

					 

					----- Original Message ----- 

					From: Shaw, David
<mailto:[email-masked]>  
					To: Lynn Conway
<mailto:[email-masked]>  
					Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009
2:31 PM
					Subject: RE: Possible
nominator/co-nominator and letter writer

					Sounds perfect, Lynn.
					 
					Although I could of course alter
our earlier plan if you feel differently in Gerry's case, I hadn't been
planning to bring up with him even the fact that I'd solicited
information from you in connection with my campaign to have you named a
fellow.  The only potential downside I can see to not bringing this up
with Gerry is that if he doesn't know you've provided any input related
to questions 8 and 12, he might tend to make more significant changes to
the text.  My personal guess would be that this would actually work out
fine, though, and I suspect from our earlier discussion that this would
be your preference.  Before proceeding down this path, though, I thought
it might be worth confirming with you that you'd prefer to enter
hands-off mode at this point, and not to review either my draft
responses to these questions or any version on which Gerry and I
ultimately converge.
					 
					Just FYI, one other thing I'd
like to do is to ask Gerry whether he has any ideas about who might be
the best possible person to list as *co*-nominator (on the assumption
that he himself is willing to serve as the nominator).  If you yourself
have any ideas in this regard, I could also pass along these names to
him as my suggestions for people who might be worth considering in this
role.  My plan would then be to continue working (with Gerry) to pull
together the nomination package, and to make sure things keep moving
forward.  Rest assured that acting in stealth mode would not in *any*
way be a negative from my viewpoint (and might even have some advantages
for me in terms of not "using up points" with AAAS); our only goal
should be to assemble a team that maximizes the odds of election.
					 
					By way of explanation, after
thinking about this some more, here are my current thoughts about the
choice of co-nominator:  On the one hand, I think it's fair (though
embarrassingly immodest) to say that I'm generally regarded (especially
now that Anton is operational) as the leading computer scientist in my
*own* research area (accelerating biomolecular simulations).  (On the
chance you're interested in such things, two weeks ago we achieved the
longstanding holy grail of a millisecond-long molecular dynamics
simulation of a protein -- more than 100 times as long as the longest
previous simulation -- and have now observed some rather stunning
structural changes, including a number of protein folding and unfolding
events, various unsuspected structural changes that explain previously
puzzling experimental results, etc.)  Upon reflection, though, I think
there are a number of potential co-nominators whose name would carry
more weight in the areas in which you've made *your* most important
contributions.
					 
					Moreover, I think it would be
relatively easy for us to enlist such an individual -- especially given
that serving as the *co*-nominator wouldn't require any significant
amount of his or her time.  (All he or she would really need to do is to
allow us to list his or her name on the nomination form.)  My strong
recommendation at this point would thus be that we identify the one
whose name would most enhance the likelihood a successful outcome, and
that either Gerry or I then contact that person to see whether they'd be
willing to serve as co-nominator.  If you should have any thoughts about
who we might approach to serve as the co-nominator, please let me know.
					 
					As far as our immediate action
plan, the one additional thing I think we should submit (though it's
formally listed as optional) is a *one-page* c.v. or bio.  Though either
I or Gerry could prepare this ourselves, providing me with a starting
point would ensure that we highlight the things that you'd most like to
emphasize in a short summary of this sort.  As in the case of questions
8 and 12, I'd plan to edit and/or rewrite this so it really is coming
from me, and would then send it to Gerry for him to edit as he sees fit.
At that point, I should be in a position to take the next steps on my
own.
					 
					Does all this sound OK to you?
					 
					David

________________________________

					From: Lynn Conway
[mailto:[email-masked]] 
					Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009
7:36 AM
					To: Shaw, David
					Subject: Re: Possible
nominator/co-nominator and letter writer

					Hi David,
					 
					Thanks for getting back to me
and for the excellent suggestions for going forward.
					 
					Maybe you could recast the draft
nomination in your own words and then contact Gerry and go over it with
him.
					 
					Since he knows my work well, he
might be best as nominator, and you could serve as co-nominator
(volunteering to help move it forward).
					 
					You could also brainstorm with
Gerry re the idea of Quux being the letter-writer.  Then too, Gerry
might think of other cool folks who could serve in that capacity.
					 
					For example, Paul Gray was
President of MIT at the time of the MIT'78 course, and he thinks very
highly of what happened. You could check with Gerry and see if he might
be able to get Paul to serve as letter-writer. If so, that would make
this a very powerful case.
					 
					BTW, I haven't mentioned any of
this to Gerry, so your contact with him will be the first he's heard
about it.
					 
					Cheers!
					 
					Lynn

					 
					 
					----- Original Message ----- 

					From: Shaw, David
<mailto:[email-masked]>  
					To: Lynn Conway
<mailto:[email-masked]>  
					Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009
3:57 AM
					Subject: RE: Possible
nominator/co-nominator and letter writer

					Sorry for the delay in
responding, Lynn.  I'm currently on a family vacation somewhere in rural
Pennsylvania, and haven't had access to email over the past few days.
					 
					Gerry would be a great choice,
and there's a strong case to be made that (assuming he's willing) he'd
be better suited for the nominator slot than I.  I'll contact him to
feel him out about this, and will also float with him the idea of having
Quux serve as the letter-writer.  Even if Gerry winds up serving as
nominator (and for that matter, even if we go with a different
*co*-nominator as well), I'd be glad to pull together the nomination
package and make sure things keep moving forward.  If you and/or Gerry
would like me to do so, it might make sense for me to run some slightly
edited language by the two of you for your review, just to put a few
things in someone else's words and to conform to some of the stylistic
conventions I've observed in other AAAS nominations.  In any case,
you've made the job of whoever does this very easy.
					 
					I'll keep you posted.
					 
					Regards,
					 
					David

________________________________

					From: Lynn Conway
[mailto:[email-masked]] 
					Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 2:16
PM
					To: Shaw, David
					Subject: Possible
nominator/co-nominator and letter writer

					Hi David,
					 
					I've been thinking about the
nominator/co-nominator and letter writer, and had an idea re someone who
might get really excited about this nomination and help move on it right
away - namely Gerry Sussman at MIT.
					 
					Gerry was very close to the
events at the MIT course in '78, and has deep insights into how things
unfolded after that, including the methods used to evolve and propagate
the knowledge. He is the one who thought of applying those methods later
on to the nascent field of synthetic biology - and I met with him and
others a few years back to strategize about that. Since then Gerry
helped motivate Drew Endy, Tom Knight and others to moved forward on
that (Gerry can tell you more about that).
					 
					Gerry is also a very excitable
and motivated person, and I think that if you approached him and pointed
out that I wasn't yet in the AAAS, he'd jump on this and help on it - as
co-nominator or perhaps nominator (you folks can decide which may be the
best way to go). 
					 
					Here is his contact information,
and note that you could also cc his wife Julie (also a computer
scientist) to make sure they get your alert in a timely way. Given that
we've got a nearly completed nomination form and that Gerry is very
familiar with it all - all he'd really have to do is sign it and then
help you rope in the 'letter-writer'.
					
					Gerald Sussman, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology
	
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/gjs/ 
					[email-masked]  
					[suggest you also copy Julie
Sussman: [email-masked] ] 

	
Now, if Gerry is amenable to becoming involved, a very good
letter-writer might be Guy Steele, whom Gerry knows extremely well and
could likely get involved right away. Guy took my MIT'78 course and
knows all about the M-C VLSI design revolution, having started his
career working on LISP VLSI microprocessors, etc.
					 
					Guy L. Steele, Jr.,  Sun
Microsystems, Inc.
	
http://research.sun.com/people/mybio.php?uid=25706 
					[email-masked] 

					There are many other
combinations of co-nominators/letter-writers that we could go with, but
I have a feeling that these would be ideal given the time constraints
you are under. Also they are both good guys and highly respected, and
both are members of the NAE, etc.
					 
					If for any reason you can't
reach Gerry or this doesn't work out, let me know right away, and we'll
move and make another selection.
					 
					Cheers!
					 
					Lynn