[Ocaml-biz] The tactical future of OCaml in 1 year's time

[Tony Edgin]

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 01:48, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> Tony Edgin wrote:
> > As for the time table, I must admit that I'm a email list
> > newbie.  What is a
> > reasonable time drop dead time for an initial strategy
> > discussion?  I do know
> > that if one is not set, the discussion will finally peter out with no
> > resolution.
>
> From previous experience, going on about business sub-issues in the
> Python crowd, 1 month.  If we cannot resolve basic questions of policy
> and will in 1 month, then there is no such will.  I can point people at
> the material evidence of Python archives if people want tangible
> evidence of that.

Good.  On October 1, I'll summarize our strategy (road map) on the COCAN wiki.

> > Modified proposed preliminary game plan:
> >
> > 1)  In  parallel,
> > 	a) Determine market
> > 	b) Bring COCAN people on board if they aren't already a
> >        part of this mailing list.
> > 2)  Determine useful set of tools for an Ocaml toolbox for
> >     this market.
> > 3)  Find existing best fit tools.
>
> For action items, I think we should cut it off here.  All these things
> are going to heavily determine what we decide as (3).  We aren't going
> to come to consensus on (3).  There are going to be camps, and at some
> point we'll have to make a decision about what strategy to back.
> Otherwise we're talking about people picking up their toys and going
> their separate ways, as I experienced in Python bizland.

We will have to be careful them with step 3, leaving the possibility open for 
tool redundancy.  Choice isn't a crime, but it will spread us thinner and 
slow us down.

> Also, I have no reason to believe that (1)(b) is easy, yet it is
> crucial.  I have said COCAN needs its own mailing list, but I don't see
> anyone biting upon that idea, let alone championing it.  COCAN is
> currently in a fairly terse, non-communicative mode.  'Somebody' is
> worried about the wiki being more of a finished product for business
> presentation, rather than a hotbed of discussion on what course of
> action to take.  I see their use of a wiki more as "unrestricted version
> control for a website" rather than a wiki culture of communication.  It
> may be that the COCAN progenitors don't *want* a lot of discussion about
> anything, and don't see the sense of it.

I see this as the COCAN mailing list.  Technically, its not, but it serves the 
same role as a COCAN mailing list.  Two mailing lists covering the same 
issues would be a bit messy.

BTW, cocanwiki, is an example of a significant Ocaml project.  

> Looking farther down the road:
> > 	b) Develop INRIA-approved marketing materials such as
> > logos and mascots.
>
> No.  Develop logos and mascots *first*, according to some sane strategy
> that takes projected INRIA concerns into account.  (i.e. Please no OCaml
> naked ninja ladies).  Leave INRIA out of the loop.  Get those logos and
> mascots out into the field, get them used by the community.  Secure the
> *community's* buy-in for something.  Use the field test to revise the
> offering.  Hope that the 2nd shipment is a worthy faits accompli, that
> the community is hooked.  Then handle the situation diplomatically with
> INRIA.  Get them to bear the standard, building upon *other* business
> partnerships that hopefully have been built by that time.

I'm confused.  INRIA owns Ocaml.  We can't force a logo upon them.  They have 
the power to choose the logo and mascot, and we can only make suggestions.

I think possibly you had an extremely bad experience with PSF.  There is 
little to suggest that INRIA will be so hard to deal with.

A thing to keep in mind is that INRIA isn't in conflict with us.  At the very 
worst, they are neutral about about OCaml's commercial use.  I'm guessing 
they are unofficially interested in it happening.  What's cooler for 
programmer than have his product be a commercial success?  What's cooler for 
a university than getting name recognition in the business community?  Okay, 
probably a lot of things, but research institutions have to prove the 
usefulness to the community at large or the government cuts their funding.

cheers,

-- 
Tony Edgin