My opinions on the issues:
2.1: I very weakly prefer 2.1.7, NICKNAMED-PACKAGE-IF-SUCCESSFUL. If we're going to return anything
other than T, we might as well return the value that carries the most
information. But I doubt anyone will ever care, though I agree
that it should be standardized.
2.2: The strongest point I want to make here is that a correctable error should be signalled whenever a package becomes fully
shadowed by another package (all of its global names are shadowed), with a restart
that requests a new local nickname for the shadowed package in the shadowing package(s). We want to alert the user to the situation, and strongly encourage them to add a new nickname (global or local) in the relevant source file so as to make the fully shadowed package accessible again. Meanwhile, we supply the restart to make it easy to remove the shadowing in the current session.
If we do that, then I think it won't matter too much how the printer deals with a fully-shadowed package, as it won't have to do so very often. I would go with 2.2.7 (proposal PRINT-UNREADABLY). I can't see introducing an obscure and cryptic syntax, that users probably won't recognize, for such a rare case; better to make it completely clear what is going on.
2.3: I strongly support Martin Simmons's new proposal. In my view, the purpose of
local nicknames is to shorten frequently typed package prefixes. Using
them for anything else seems potentially unsafe. The catch, of course, is that implementing this behavior is likely to break existing code, though OTOH the fix is not difficult.
2.4: I strongly support 2.4.4, NO-EFFECT.
2.5: I would simply disallow it, with an uncorrectable error. What are we trying to do here, win the Obfuscated Lisp Contest?
2.6: I agree with 2.6.3, EXTRA-KEYWORD-ARGUMENT-LIST.
2.7: package-locally-nicknamed-by-list
doesn't seem felicitously defined to me in the first place. Shouldn't
it return an alist of package and local nickname? Other than that, I
have no opinion.
2.8: I agree with 2.8.4, NOT-AFFECTED-BY-LOCAL-NICKNAMES.
2.9:
I don't think it should be allowed to use the empty string as the name
or nickname of any package other than the keyword package. (See above crack about the Obfuscated Lisp Contest.)
-- Scott