From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id MAA06671; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:00:31 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA06502 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:00:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de (tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de [141.76.75.101]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f9PA0Tr25168 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:00:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ithif51 (ithif51 [141.76.75.51]) by tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de (8.12.0.Beta7/8.12.0.Beta7) with ESMTP id f9PA0P49028596 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:00:29 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from tews by ithif51 with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 15whJJ-0005jc-00 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:00:25 +0200 From: Hendrik Tews MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15319.58040.859039.299169@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:00:24 +0200 (CEST) To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Whither the Caml Consortium? In-Reply-To: <20011024175707.A23319@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> References: <20011020012347.A29847@quincy.inria.fr> <20011019192854.N9735-100000@shell5.ba.best.com> <20011020172932.A5967@fichte.ai.univie.ac.at> <20011022192533.A12039@quincy.inria.fr> <3BD45932.6D782E08@earthlink.net> <20011024175707.A23319@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under Emacs 20.7.2 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Hi, Sven writes: Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:57:07 +0200 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Whither the Caml Consortium? i was contemplating creating a association in france to group several users which would, once we are able to sum up the 2000 euros, become one member of the consortium. Are you sure that your application to become a member of the consortium will be successful? As I understand it, INRIA decides on the applications. My impression from the current thread (and from previous ones on the consortium) is that there is some confusion about the real purpose of the consortium (i.e., INRIAS position) and what members of this list think about the consortium. Some members on the mailing list (myself included) would like to join the consortium to influence the development of Ocaml. But for reasons that I have not been able to grasp, INRIA seems to be not really keen on seeing us ``small'' ocaml users in the consortium. I would therefore suggest that we first discuss what we want to achieve by becomming a consortium member. Then we can see how to make our interests compatible with INRIAS constraints. If we reach some consensus here, it is probably easier to get the programming work done ourselfs, instead of convincing the consortium to pay somebody to do the job. I, for instance, would like some improvements for ocaml for which it is absolutely impossible to get scientific reward, and which are therefore very difficult to get implemented by the ocaml developers. Take for instance better error diagnostics from the ocaml parser or Thierry Bravier's ocamlyacc patch (http://caml.inria.fr/archives/199712/msg00020.html). One way to get these things done is to join the consortium ... Another possibility is to write a patch (like Thierry did) and get it into the ocaml distribution (what Thierry not achieved). However, it is not clear (at least to me) what requirements have to be met, to get such an improvement accepted by the ocaml developers. I think, what is needed is that the ocaml developers give some guidelines on how we ``small'' ocaml users should proceed, if we want to contribute something to the ocaml kernel. Then there would be no need for us to join the consortium. Bye, Hendrik ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr