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=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1816FBC6C for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:54:52 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAMdyoEeAArkpi2dsb2JhbACBWI5OAQEBCAQGBwgan3c X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,280,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="8551256" Received: from chokecherry.srv.cs.cmu.edu ([128.2.185.41]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 30 Jan 2008 21:54:51 +0100 Received: from stratocaster.home (c-24-3-147-134.hsd1.mn.comcast.net [24.3.147.134]) (authenticated bits=0) by chokecherry.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m0UKsopt003630 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:54:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ecc by stratocaster.home with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JKJxJ-0002BG-TW for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:54:49 -0500 Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:54:49 -0500 From: Eric Cooper To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: [OSR] OCaml Standard Recommandation Process Message-ID: <20080130205449.GA8313@stratocaster.home> Mail-Followup-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr References: <1201440183.6302.27.camel@Blefuscu> <527cf6bc0801301225r210faed0y860d56c6e49572c9@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 vaguely:01 storm:98 motto:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 defined:02 suggestion:03 blue:96 consensus:04 consensus:04 problem:05 wich:05 wed:06 On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 08:49:49PM +0000, Sylvain Le Gall wrote: > On 30-01-2008, blue storm wrote: > > I'm not fond of the "let's vote" idea. I think most discussions can be > > sorted out by reaching a consensus, wich is a vaguely defined idea, > > but works very well in practice. > [...] > This is just a suggestion. I am only afraid that some point of view > never converge, and i don't like the idea of things being blocked by a > minority (in particular some people tends to post more than necessary -- > just as me today, but they are not representative to the real > problem...) I like the old Internet Engineering Task Force motto: "We believe in rough consensus and working code". -- Eric Cooper e c c @ c m u . e d u