On Saturday 04 August 2007 18:35:17 Julien Moutinho wrote:
> I am quite half-hearted about the idea of an Inrians' veto,
> despite the fact that, they sure know how to select.
> However if this could allow extra-Inrians to actually contribute to
> (and learn) the jewelery, in a more _visible_ and _fast_ way,
> which is _hardly_ the case currently, why not!  Let us be pragmatic.
> That said... do they have enough manpower for such a peer-review task?

I think it is vitally important to note that the purpose of the team at INRIA 
is to perform research related to programming languages.

The fact that the culmination of their research has been adopted worldwide by 
serious users for applications ranging from CPU verification to cancer 
research is a testament to the enormous practical value of their work.

However, they are in no way obliged to persue OCaml beyond research. To the 
best of my knowledge, research on OCaml is slowing. However, the rate of 
adoption of OCaml is increasing. So I agree that something must be done, but 
making statements about INRIA's alleged "responsibility" will go nowhere 
fast.

I believe we are all free to fork OCaml, create a new open source project and 
begin our own iterative improvements to it. I would like to see some of the 
industrial players with significant vested financial interests in OCaml 
collaborate in making or funding these improvements.

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
OCaml for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/?e