Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
> In order to reach this goal, a number of questions should be answered
> (best as some kind of community process):
> 
> - How can people participate (add packages, fix bugs, improve the base
>   software)?
> 
> - How can the quality be ensured?
> 
> - How are decisions made?
> 
> - How can the platform be kept open?

How about a structure like this:

    * A GCC-like steering committee composed of very
      experienced, respected Caml developers, who would be
      responsible for setting overall policy and resolving
      conflicts in the community.

    * Mozilla-like module owners, designated by the
      steering committee.  Module owners would review and
      accept patches for their modules after public
      discussion.

    * Rotating GCC-like release managers, also chosen by the
      steering committee.  The release managers would be
      responsible for coordinating regular releases and
      determining when each release was ready.

People could participate by posting proposals to a mailing list; 
discussion would ensue, and the relevant module owner would be expected 
to accept or reject the proposal within a reasonable amount of time, 
taking into account the consensus on the list.  A Mozilla-like review 
process could be used: the author submits a patch, the module owner 
reviews it and requests changes, and they iterate until the module owner 
is satisfied.  For major enhancements, a more formal, detailed proposal 
format could be used, like Python's PEPs.

If INRIA was willing, such a structure could also take over development 
of the standard libraries.

Ben

-------------------
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