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 DAA16421; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 03:17:51 +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 DAA16336 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 03:17:50 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from shell5.ba.best.com (shell5.ba.best.com [206.184.139.136]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f9L1Hn509794 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 03:17:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost (bpr@localhost) by shell5.ba.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.sh) with ESMTP id SAA01508; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 18:17:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 18:17:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Rogoff To: Markus Mottl cc: Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Whither the Caml Consortium? In-Reply-To: <20011020172932.A5967@fichte.ai.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: <20011020174749.E24998-100000@shell5.ba.best.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Markus Mottl wrote: > 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 think altruism and love for OCaml is a lot closer than very specific selfish reasons. That's still not quite right, maybe idealism and civic virtue come closer? I can't speak for the other companies, but I think that's not an inaccurate picture of where I work. I'm not convinced that my, or anyone else's, behavior is entirely rational, or at least that the objective function and even the decision variables aren't somewhat arbitrary. So the model of a corporation as a purely money optimizing entity is inaccurate. But I'll stop here, this list isn't the place for a discussion of my world view; if you want that, join the Consortium and I'll send you a private, copyrighted e-mail :-). > 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... No doubt the process and goals of the Consortium can be tuned. Thanks for your altruistic work on behalf of OCaml, Markus! -- Brian ------------------- 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