Raphael Ritz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Of course things are involved as all FWT members are also
> (more or less) active members of the community but let us
> not forget: we are an "open source community" which cannot
> be organized like some corporate body ("you have to do this until
> then") and we should be very careful not to diminish other peoples
> enthusiasm for Plone; rather the contrary.

This is a very important point. It's sometimes too easy to fall back on the
(arguably easier to understand, or at least more structured) formalisms of
corporations that in many cases directly contradict the motivational patterns of
those people we solicit contributions from.

> I'd like to compare our situation here with the process of scientific
> publishing which is where I am coming from:

I think this is a very valuable comparison. Certainly, a lot of the academic
literature on open source often draws similar parallels (perhaps 

The only difference I think think is worth bearing in mind is that in science,
we tend to encourage exploration to broaden the knowledge of the field in
general. For Plone, we need to build a kick-ass CMS. Sometimes that requires
more control, or at least more direction. Witness limi's presentation at the
start of the Archipelago sprint - I think Plone is much better for it.


Framework-Team mailing list

Reply via email to