> Yes. Will it happen? Almost certainly not, though I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong about this.
I have a sense that any new standards process would have to work hard to defend against a number of distractions, such as forcing character encoding into the standard, the lure of JVM style compile once run anywhere (which has destroyed the ability for Clojure to bootstrap without maven), or attempts to reduce or remove certain warts that some users find annoying.
Many who don't know the history don't realize that the standard as it exists encoded the separate practices of many disparate groups into a single standard. This can be confusing for newcomers because they may encounter ways of doing things that are archaic but still in the language. Part of the challenge thus is not getting rid of things, but somehow figuring out how to communicate what have come to be understood as the better ways of doing things --- all without changing those parts of the standard.
I'm sure that the old lispers have fairly extensive lists of fundamental issues and improvements.
The short list that I have been able to compile from chance encounters with mentions of shortcomings includes implementation details, such as lexical O(1) jump tables, delimited continuations, proper tail call elimination, threads, extending dispatch macro syntax, and default precision for reading floats, and issues that almost certainly need more research and exploration, such as finding a solution to the CLOS action at a distance issue, CLOS dispatch on parametric types, something about static types, ways to alloc without gc, and many more things I am completely unaware of.
The Racket ecosystem has done quite a bit of research and implementation in many of these areas, but Racket lies at the far end of the lisp family from common lisp. Finding a way to take the more static and text based ideas from the ML/Racket end of the spectrum and make them accessible at the the dynamic image based Smalltalk/Interlisp end seems like something that could happen within the common lisp space more readily than elsewhere. There seem to be some fundamental questions about how late binding interacts with many other language features that do not have satisfactory answers.
All of this being said, I don't see the motivation for anyone in the space to spend the time on another standards process while so many ideas haven't been explored.