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 UAA18217; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 20:42:20 +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 UAA18468 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 20:42:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from quincy.inria.fr (quincy.inria.fr [128.93.8.52]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f9PIgIr12907 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 20:42:18 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from mauny@localhost) by quincy.inria.fr (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f9PIkT524906 for caml-list@inria.fr; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 20:46:29 +0200 Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 20:46:29 +0200 From: Michel Mauny To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Whither the Caml Consortium? Message-ID: <20011025204629.A24803@quincy.inria.fr> Reply-To: Michel.Mauny@inria.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> <20011024164835.C20823@pauillac.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from guttman@mitre.org on Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 01:35:21PM -0400 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Joshua D. Guttman wrote/écrivait (Oct 24 2001, 01:35PM -0400): > For people like me, it would be good to have a level of consortium > membership that a single project could justify. If there was > something in the three figure range (i.e. hundreds but not thousands > of dollars), I would simply make the arrangements and I'd never have > to convince anyone organizationally very distant from me. But for a > consortium membership that costs thousands, I would have to convince > people I rarely interact with, and they would want to decide whether > OCaml should play some company-wide role, and probably it would be a > dead end. > > Would the OCaml Consortium consider something like this? This is one of the points that should be discussed at the first meeting of the Consortium. If we go that way, I'll have to argue with my hierarchy, because they already didn't like that much the different contribution levels in the current agreement, but it doesn't look impossible. -- Michel ------------------- 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