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 VAA14262; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 21:36:27 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id VAA14154 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 21:36:26 +0200 (MET DST) 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 RAA10664 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:29:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from fichte.ai.univie.ac.at (fichte.ai.univie.ac.at [131.130.174.156]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f9KFTa504532 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:29:36 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from markus@localhost) by fichte.ai.univie.ac.at (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) id RAA06462; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:29:32 +0200 Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:29:32 +0200 From: Markus Mottl To: Brian Rogoff Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Whither the Caml Consortium? Message-ID: <20011020172932.A5967@fichte.ai.univie.ac.at> References: <20011020012347.A29847@quincy.inria.fr> <20011019192854.N9735-100000@shell5.ba.best.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20011019192854.N9735-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>; from bpr@best.com on Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 19:50:44 -0700 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Brian Rogoff wrote: > That number is embarassingly small. I've seen a number of posts here > from people at large companies. It is amazing that so few of these > companies are willing to join, and that relatively small companies like > Artisan, where I work, and FluxMedia, should be taking a leadership > role. Unfortunate as it is, but I am absolutely not surprised by the low number of members in the Consortium, and I already explained the reasons here when it began to form. While three small companies have stepped in (most likely with the minimum investment), the big rest is simply free riding. One can assume that most industrial companies share similar needs with respect to OCaml. Since they do not win opportunities by joining the Consortium (rather lose them = money), because other members are likely to do the "home work" for the rest anyway, it's a rational decision to stay outside. It may even be the case that the mentioned companies only joined in, because they have so specific needs that it is unlikely that other companies will solve their problems in the Consortium. So the realistic assumption is that the current three members haven't joined the Consortium out of altruism and love for OCaml, but merely out of very specific selfish reasons, which may not necessarily be for the benefit of the whole OCaml-community. I am not accusing anybody here, it's just one possible, rational explanation... I'd be very, very surprised if the situation improved significantly in the future. Unless INRIA finds a way to let people benefit from being members of (= having rights in) the Consortium irrespective of the direct benefit of "produced goods", in other terms, as long as there is no way to invest for financial benefit, we won't see any change here anytime soon. Therefore, I still propose that membership rights, whose amount of control must be clearly defined, be permanent and tradeable. The last property may require infrastructure that INRIA isn't allowed to build up or use out of legal considerations, I don't know. But if it is possible, you can bet that a significantly higher amount of money can be raised for the future development of OCaml. To answer Brian here: it's not the fault of the companies that haven't yet joined in. It's probably just that the current scheme may not be the most appropriate one for our goals... Regards, Markus Mottl -- Markus Mottl markus@oefai.at Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.oefai.at/~markus ------------------- 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