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 AAA30696; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:44:31 +0100 (MET) Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA30017 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:44:30 +0100 (MET) From: Alain.Frisch@ens.fr Received: from nef.ens.fr (nef.ens.fr [129.199.96.32]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2INiwKW024312 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:44:59 +0100 Received: from clipper.ens.fr (clipper-gw.ens.fr [129.199.1.22]) by nef.ens.fr (8.12.10/1.01.28121999) with ESMTP id i2INiQ5v014094 ; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:44:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (frisch@localhost) by clipper.ens.fr (8.12.3/jb-1.1) id i2INiOxu023977 ; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:44:24 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: clipper.ens.fr: frisch owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:44:24 +0100 (MET) X-X-Sender: frisch@clipper.ens.fr Reply-To: Alain.Frisch@ens.fr To: Alex Baretta cc: Ocaml Subject: [Caml-list] Structuring the Caml community (Re: OCaml's Cathedral & Bazaar) In-Reply-To: <4059E2BD.6060902@baretta.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) X-Miltered: at nez-perce by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; alain:01 frisch:01 ocaml's:01 baretta:01 wiki:01 bounded:01 alain:01 ocaml:01 caml:01 caml:01 alex:01 structuring:02 precisely:02 wrote:03 cathedral:95 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk X-Keywords: X-UID: 189 On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Alex Baretta wrote: > Xavier, what you guys must do is not pontificate but define once and for > all the official role of the community in relation to Inria and to the > Caml team. Isn't it precisely what Xavier did in his last mail to the list ? In my opinion, the problem does not come from the Caml team, but from the Caml community. The community needs to be more structured, define its goals, organize discussions, and develop missing tools. Do we really need an intervention from Above to create a structure that would allow to foster collaborative work within the community ? There is a common interest, collaboration shouln't be impossible. It would be great to see one of the companies committed to OCaml setting up a "community web site", lauching specific mailing lists / forums to discuss technical issues (like "best practices" for packaging libraries) and less technical ones ("shall we better have a wiki or blogs to make the community visible ?"), and organizing a somewhat formal system to reach conclusions in a bounded amount of time (vote ?). Then publish the results, and call for participation if some resources are necessary to develop or set up something. This does not seem out of reach, we "just" need someone to take some responsibility and organize the process. Many people will be happy to help if some initial impulsion is given. -- Alain ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners