Consider these three options:

(1) There is a "standard set" of syntax extensions which is not
officially part of Ocaml distribution.

(2) Official Ocaml syntax is extended with a conservative set of syntax
extensions, maybe just "open in" and "try finally".

(3) There is an unofficial, full blown "Ocaml on steroids" distribution
which contains everybody's bells and whistles.

I support (2).

I do not support (1) because it will just lead to annoyances. There is a
reason why programming languages have fixed syntax. The revised syntax
is "official" and has never been widely adopted. Why should we then
expect that an "unofficial" set of syntax extensions would be widely
adopted? I certainly would not use any in source code that I intend to
distribute.

Option (3) sounds like an interesting experiment. Someone should try it
without trying to first reach a concensus within the community. It 
should have a name that distinguishes it from official "pure Ocaml". It 
should be marketed correctly, for example as a development enviroment, 
or "even more than GODI", but NOT as an alternative to pure Ocaml. It 
does not matter if it is neither of these, I am talking about marketing.

Best regards,

Andrej