From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id pB9H0ilT022568 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 18:00:44 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnUCAIQ94k6GnQCBlGdsb2JhbABDhQalcyIBAQEBCQsJCRQDIoFyAQEFIw8BOA0BEAkCGAICBRYLAgIJAwIBAgFFBg0BBwIQrCeRLYE0iSiBFgSUcIVLjF0 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,326,1320620400"; d="scan'208";a="134758459" Received: from shiva.jussieu.fr ([134.157.0.129]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 09 Dec 2011 18:00:39 +0100 Received: from hydrogene.pps.jussieu.fr (hydrogene.pps.jussieu.fr [134.157.168.1]) by shiva.jussieu.fr (8.14.4/jtpda-5.4) with ESMTP id pB9H0ZWr010247 ; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 18:00:36 +0100 (CET) X-Ids: 164 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [134.157.168.1]) by hydrogene.pps.jussieu.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61296C0C47; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 18:00:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4EE23EB6.6000209@dogguy.org> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 18:00:38 +0100 From: Mehdi Dogguy User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111120 Icedove/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benedikt Meurer CC: =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsOpbWllIERpbWlubw==?= , Jacques Garrigue , caml users , Caml-devel developers , =?UTF-8?B?U3TDqXBoYW5lIEdsb25kdQ==?= References: <55531934-37A5-4CC5-AB67-20CE4CCE8269@googlemail.com> <1323427075.32238.91.camel@arrakis> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.3 OpenPGP: id=1C00C790 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Miltered: at jchkmail.jussieu.fr with ID 4EE23EB3.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 4EE23EB3.002/134.157.168.1/hydrogene.pps.jussieu.fr/hydrogene.pps.jussieu.fr/ Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml maintenance status / community fork (again) On 12/09/2011 03:24 PM, Benedikt Meurer wrote: > > Right. I would like to place focus on discussing this point, as it > seems to be the root of the evil. It would be so easy to fix, IMHO, > and you don't need to give up control by the core team. Why not > accept a model similar to i.e. the NetBSD project, with a lot of > committers (experts in their own areas) and 2-3 people to keep an > eye on the overall direction? > or instead of changing how OCaml is currently handled by INRIA's team, we could consider some development model similar to Eglibc's one. Eglibc is not a fork of glibc, but a glibc distribution. http://lwn.net/Articles/333755/ could be an interesting read (for those who care). Regards, -- Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي http://dogguy.org/