From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FB24BC6C for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:24:17 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAM8inEfRVca8emdsb2JhbACCOjaNOAEBCQgpgRaSfYYg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,256,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="7290849" Received: from concorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.39]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 27 Jan 2008 15:24:17 +0100 Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m0REOHEv022451 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:24:17 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAM8inEfRVca8emdsb2JhbACCOjaNOAEBCQgpgRaSfYYg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,256,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="7290848" Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.188]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 27 Jan 2008 15:24:14 +0100 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id g11so1035869rvb.57 for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 06:24:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=0VUYxXj4qCK0AzH812qyDOKJkUM60gKHTMwdyBrA8H0=; b=ly0NskzQcbyFqVx/Kdq4PTCtN52JEkObk729YldJg16WJFJui1hka+81j8erdG3ePBJA2WHZj2OQBn07CVoXjGFh0doU3uNY+It4zfZPJHQCtdTFMUJbJVdArzxUNSze0OSGZTilGvQXH1+iAAkgdRMln9wBcEW7cO4o9L987eY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=XX9hWls+Puarm2o3pfaCCzlH8Hv+eiPa9Z6uWnVdzepTZtx0bDf0Vbel7VM89OV6gLQhniPfoSnjMkg/jnS64g7y0HE+6EiyLg3QcgvQk1dcrZqwShr5Tmka7OycoU2t3T+S+4VGJnMhVxqu0FJDiOuRhVxGZN1z1sEyQ41Vo0I= Received: by 10.140.147.18 with SMTP id u18mr2730825rvd.267.1201443853441; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 06:24:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.141.12.14 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 06:24:13 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <891bd3390801270624h4df6cdadn9d5e888dae615280@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 09:24:13 -0500 From: "Yaron Minsky" Reply-To: yminsky@gmail.com To: "David Teller" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [OSR] OCaml Standard Recommandation Process Cc: OCaml In-Reply-To: <1201440183.6302.27.camel@Blefuscu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_5946_16936040.1201443853443" References: <1201440183.6302.27.camel@Blefuscu> X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 479C9411.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; yaron:01 minsky:01 yminsky:01 ocaml:01 python's:01 peps:01 ocaml:01 univ-orleans:01 wiki:01 wiki:01 univ-orleans:01 lifo:01 beginner's:01 bug:01 python's:01 ------=_Part_5946_16936040.1201443853443 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline What is it that is meant to be standardized by this process? Is this meant to be parallel to the Java Community Process or Python's PEPs (Python Enhancement Proposals)? Those are not just about "best practices", but are actually about code, language features, APIs, etc. I don't at first glance see any real use in agreeing on best practices for OCaml. Can you give some examples of what would make a reasonable OSR? That might clarify the purpose of them considerably. y On Jan 27, 2008 8:23 AM, David Teller wrote: > Dear list, > > As I have mentioned in my previous message, during the OCaml Developer > Days, the INRIA team has made clear that, among other things, the > community is essentially in charge of recommending best practices, > standards, etc. A candidate name has been suggested: "OSR", for "OCaml > Standard Recommandations." > > While we already have a few tools for this kind of discussions, (I'm > thinking about the current mailing-list and the Cocan Wiki), at the > moment, we are lacking organisation and a way of committing to a > decision. > > Let me suggest the following process: > * anyone on this mailing-list may ask for or suggest best practises -- > to do so, please put [OSR] in the header of your e-mail > * after some debate, if one or more solutions have emerged, we put these > solutions on the appropriate page of the Cocan Wiki, with summaries of > pros and cons and an official space for voting and suggesting future > improvements > * if the vote proves conclusive, we move the chosen solution from the > voting stage to some page on that Wiki, say "recommended practises." > > Does this seem an acceptable method ? > > Regards, > David > -- > David Teller > Security of Distributed Systems > http://www.univ-orleans.fr/lifo/Members/David.Teller > Angry researcher: French Universities need reforms, but the LRU act > brings liquidations. > > _______________________________________________ > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: > http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list > Archives: http://caml.inria.fr > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs > ------=_Part_5946_16936040.1201443853443 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
What is it that is meant to be standardized by this process?  Is this meant to be parallel to the Java Community Process or Python's PEPs (Python Enhancement Proposals)?  Those are not just about "best practices", but are actually about code, language features, APIs, etc.  I don't at first glance see any real use in agreeing on best practices for OCaml.  Can you give some examples of what would make a reasonable OSR?  That might clarify the purpose of them considerably.

y

On Jan 27, 2008 8:23 AM, David Teller <David.Teller@univ-orleans.fr> wrote:
   Dear list,

 As I have mentioned in my previous message, during the OCaml Developer
Days, the INRIA team has made clear that, among other things, the
community is essentially in charge of recommending best practices,
standards, etc. A candidate name has been suggested: "OSR", for "OCaml
Standard Recommandations."

While we already have a few tools for this kind of discussions, (I'm
thinking about the current mailing-list and the Cocan Wiki), at the
moment, we are lacking organisation and a way of committing to a
decision.

Let me suggest the following process:
* anyone on this mailing-list may ask for or suggest best practises --
to do so, please put [OSR] in the header of your e-mail
* after some debate, if one or more solutions have emerged, we put these
solutions on the appropriate page of the Cocan Wiki, with summaries of
pros and cons and an official space for voting and suggesting future
improvements
* if the vote proves conclusive, we move the chosen solution from the
voting stage to some page on that Wiki, say "recommended practises."

Does this seem an acceptable method ?

Regards,
 David
--
David Teller
 Security of Distributed Systems
 http://www.univ-orleans.fr/lifo/Members/David.Teller
 Angry researcher: French Universities need reforms, but the LRU act brings liquidations.

_______________________________________________
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs

------=_Part_5946_16936040.1201443853443--