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=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,SPF_FAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCE3ABC6C for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:43:30 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAPrUn0fAXQInh2dsb2JhbACQJwEBAQgKKZ9A X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,276,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="6734968" Received: from concorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.39]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 30 Jan 2008 10:43:30 +0100 Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m0U9hTWD020146 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:43:30 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAHPVn0dQW+UCh2dsb2JhbACQJwEBAQgKKZ9B X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,276,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="21969718" Received: from main.gmane.org (HELO ciao.gmane.org) ([80.91.229.2]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 30 Jan 2008 10:43:30 +0100 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JK9Tb-0007HU-Vk for caml-list@inria.fr; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:43:27 +0000 Received: from ks300734.kimsufi.com ([91.121.65.225]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:43:27 +0000 Received: from sylvain by ks300734.kimsufi.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:43:27 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: caml-list@inria.fr From: Sylvain Le Gall Subject: Re: [OSR] OCaml Standard Recommandation Process Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:43:19 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1201440183.6302.27.camel@Blefuscu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ks300734.kimsufi.com User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1pl2 (Debian) Sender: news X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 47A046C2.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; le-gall:01 ocaml:01 univ-orleans:01 wiki:01 wiki:01 wrote:01 classified:97 sync:04 sync:04 thread:06 discussion:06 discussion:06 standard:07 seem:08 acceptable:09 On 27-01-2008, David Teller wrote: > Does this seem an acceptable method ? > Yes, but we should add some more rules: * designate 1 person that will sync discussion and OSR on the wiki (maybe the one who start the thread) * limit the time of disscussion (1 month) * limit the time of vote (1 week) If the time limit is reached, the current text (as sync by the person in charge on the wiki) is put on vote: Subject: [OSR] XML processing -- Read the OSR: http://wiki.cocan.org/osr/XMLProcessing. Choice: [ ] Accept the OSR [ ] Further discussion Please classify this choices (you should put 1 to the best choice). We should find a way to allow only one vote per person. After one week of voting, choices are classified (Methode Condorcet) and the best choice win. If the choice is "Further discussion", the discussion should last another month. This way, you prevent endless discussion (non converging one) by a final decision after one month. Regards, Sylvain Le Gall