From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id RAA10628 for caml-red; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 17:01:38 +0100 (MET)
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 PAA04141 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:45:16 +0100 (MET)
Received: from mail.esiee.fr (mail.esiee.fr [147.215.1.3])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f19EjFP12957
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:45:15 +0100 (MET)
Received: from pc5209h.esiee.fr (pc5209h.esiee.fr [147.215.50.42])
	by mail.esiee.fr (Postfix) with SMTP
	id 3FD76D15A2; Fri,  9 Feb 2001 15:45:14 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:45:50 +0100
From: Fabien Fleutot <fleutotf@esiee.fr>
To: Markus Mottl <mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: R: Consortium Caml
Message-Id: <20010209154550.7ba53a91.fleutotf@esiee.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20010208014519.A13836@miss.wu-wien.ac.at>
References: <000201c090f4$0f5013a0$18ab6ed4@alex>
	<20010208014519.A13836@miss.wu-wien.ac.at>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.4.9 (GTK+ 1.2.8; Linux 2.2.17-21mdk; i686)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr

On Thu, 8 Feb 2001 01:45:21 +0100
Markus Mottl <mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> wrote:

> This would be a
> true incentive for the OCaml-community to liquefy some money, because
> it wouldn't just be a "donation" but an "investment".

That's false: in a consortium, one pays a fee for one year, and by the end
of that year, there's no more membership, so no more value, and no
investment. A stock exchange wouldn't work in the same way, if one 
had to re-buy its own stocks every year, would it ?

The idea of setting up facilities to create associations able to gather
the required 2K euro or wathever amount looks better and simpler: as soom
as the first one will be released, anybody else would just have to
cut-and-paste its status to create a new one. 

Another solution would
be to fix a minimal annual amount, and to give a representativeness
proportionnal to one's contribution: that way, it wouldn't be necessary to
create more than one association. Moreover, this association would just be
a way to externalise administrative tasks, from the INRIA's point of view.