Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 18:03:17 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 17:48, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com
wrote:
Note that the Zope Steering group is not about
packages that are not in the framework, so if lovely.remotetask isn't
there, it can say little.
Which is
Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 17:48:37 schrieb Martijn Faassen:
Hi there,
Lennart Regebro wrote:
[snip]
And it is in any case in no way even remotely connected to the group
Martijn proposed and has been discussed in this thread.
- Attracting newbies to web development is not a task of the
Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 19:00:12 schrieb Baiju M:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com
wrote:
[snip]
The steering group isn't intended to take a responsibility for the
entirety of the Zope software. Zope 2, Grok and the Zope 3 app server
(which would
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2009-3-3 00:36 +0100:
...
* how will the community make hard decisions where lots of people
disagree?
You try to achieve consensus. When you do not, you get the chance
that people turn away.
...
* who reminds us of necessary tasks and directions we're going into?
Martin Aspeli wrote at 2009-3-3 17:21 +0900:
...
How many times have we gotten bogged down in semantics or
naming discussions and killed off the momentum behind something?
A clear notion of semantics and well chosen names are important
for any project.
I would not want momentum resulting in
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2009-3-3 22:11 +0100:
...
backwards compatibility at all costs,
I agree that have erred on the side of too much backwards compatibility.
That increased the overhead of changes tremendously and blocked innovation.
Large applications are built upon the framework.
If
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2009-3-3 22:11 +0100:
...
backwards compatibility at all costs,
I agree that have erred on the side of too much backwards compatibility.
That increased the overhead of changes tremendously and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04.03.2009 8:50 Uhr, Chris McDonough wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
2) I'm also not in favor of a giant lockstep set of software versions shared
between notional releases Zope 3.5, Grok, and Zope 2.12. I can only see
this as
continuing our
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 07:52, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
Tather than reply in kind here, let me summarize: I'm glad we agree more
than
we disagree, and I apologize if I've attributed to you beliefs that you don't
have. It's heartening to hear that you're
Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 07:52:09 schrieb Chris McDonough:
Tather than reply in kind here, let me summarize: I'm glad we agree more
than we disagree, and I apologize if I've attributed to you beliefs that
you don't have. It's heartening to hear that you're in favor of most of
the things I'm
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 09:21, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
To the extent we can discourage the formation of the
one-big-group-to-rule-them-all by encouraging the formation of smaller
groups, I
think it's a good idea. But in reality, I think nothing needs to be done:
group-forming
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:04, Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk wrote:
What I don't see in your proposal is, how these subset-groups would be
coordinated, which leads to the following:
- How would these groups be formed? If there's nobody who encourages people to
do so,
They will be formed
Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 08:16:26 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 07:52, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
Tather than reply in kind here, let me summarize: I'm glad we agree more
than we disagree, and I apologize if I've attributed to you beliefs that
you don't have.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk wrote:
[snip]
- I think, Zope 3 is not only about some seperate packages, but about a
complete programming experience. Thus there needs to be some integrating
force, that draws together all these packages, writes some
Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 10:25:19 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:04, Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk wrote:
What I don't see in your proposal is, how these subset-groups would be
coordinated, which leads to the following:
- How does some foreigner know, if a package is
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:56, Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk wrote:
Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 10:25:19 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:04, Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk wrote:
What I don't see in your proposal is, how these subset-groups would be
coordinated, which
On 3/4/09 1:07 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
Sorry, the you above in you scolded was Martin Aspeli, not Faassen.
Note that the scolding had something to do with you breaking Plone
trunk due to a transitive change in Chameleon, and the realisation that
Paul Everitt wrote:
When I read Martin's post, I had a similar reaction. Namely, that the
convenience of the Uberthing (Plone in this case) will always trump the
desire of packages trying to survive on their own for new audiences. At
the time of the configuration scolding, I remember
On 3/4/09 8:16 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Paul Everitt wrote:
When I read Martin's post, I had a similar reaction. Namely, that the
convenience of the Uberthing (Plone in this case) will always trump the
desire of packages trying to survive on their own for new audiences. At
the time of the
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 3:04 AM, Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk wrote:
Am Mittwoch 04 März 2009 07:52:09 schrieb Chris McDonough:
Tather than reply in kind here, let me summarize: I'm glad we agree more
than we disagree, and I apologize if I've attributed to you beliefs that
you don't have.
Hi Paul
Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] the Zope Framework project
On 3/4/09 8:16 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
[...]
Chameleon provided something that made it work for those
users, while allowing it to not be burdened by those needs.
Everybody wins.
Hopefully such solutions will be the norm
On 3/4/09 9:47 AM, Roger Ineichen wrote:
Hi Paul
Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] the Zope Framework project
On 3/4/09 8:16 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
[...]
Chameleon provided something that made it work for those
users, while allowing it to not be burdened by those needs.
Everybody wins
Hi there,
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
[snip]
You can try to bake more leadership of the overall Zope community into
this, but I think this is a fruitless fight right now. Reduce the scope,
try make some things better and don't step on other peoples feet if you
don't need to. For example don't
Hey there,
Chris McDonough wrote:
1) I'm not in favor of a single steering group for the *entirety* of all Zope
software. We've tried a similar thing in the past (via the foundation
structure); it didn't work and I'm not sure how we'd expect things to turn out
any differently this time.
Hi there,
Andreas Jung wrote:
[snip]
This would definitely make sense to me. With respect to a steering
committee: I am also a bit skeptical about such a committee. I think
that the upcoming ZF board will have a good representation of each Zope
project on the board in order to address things
On Wednesday 04 March 2009, Martijn Faassen wrote:
I don't agree the Zope Foundation board should directly steer
development of the Zope software.
I totally agree.
Regards,
Stephan
--
Stephan Richter
Web Software Design, Development and Training
Google me. Zope Stephan Richter
Chris McDonough wrote:
[snip]
This just seems like a blindingly obvious antigoal to actually breaking apart
the software into more discrete bits using eggs. Why not just stick with a
huge
tarball release or one single egg if it all has to be versioned through time
to
99% of its consumers
Baiju M wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk wrote:
[snip]
- I think, Zope 3 is not only about some seperate packages, but about a
complete programming experience. Thus there needs to be some integrating
force, that draws together all these packages, writes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04.03.2009 17:26 Uhr, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
Andreas Jung wrote:
[snip]
This would definitely make sense to me. With respect to a steering
committee: I am also a bit skeptical about such a committee. I think
that the upcoming ZF
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 17:48, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com wrote:
Note that the Zope Steering group is not about
packages that are not in the framework, so if lovely.remotetask isn't
there, it can say little.
Which is exactly my point. It surely isn't at the moment, and I don't
see
Hi there,
Paul Everitt wrote:
[snip]
Hopefully the Zope Framework proposal helps untangle this, and gets to a
point where you don't have to keep the Uberthing in your head when doing
something small.
It's not small, as it has an impact on a lot of things that build on
zope.component.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 18:03, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com wrote:
I'd like there to be someone who can make this decision and I'd like
this someone to usually make *positive* decisions that work towards
resolving the underlying issue, while coordinating with everybody that
is
Andreas Jung wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04.03.2009 17:26 Uhr, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
Andreas Jung wrote:
[snip]
This would definitely make sense to me. With respect to a steering
committee: I am also a bit skeptical about such a committee. I think
Martijn Faassen wrote:
snip
* A clear set of explicit, layered dependencies in software is generally
a good thing. We can start thinking about smaller pieces better. By
splitting up into individually packaged and released bits, we are forced
to think about these things more.
(I'm running
Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 17:48, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com wrote:
Note that the Zope Steering group is not about
packages that are not in the framework, so if lovely.remotetask isn't
there, it can say little.
Which is exactly my point. It surely isn't at the
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com wrote:
[snip]
The steering group isn't intended to take a responsibility for the
entirety of the Zope software. Zope 2, Grok and the Zope 3 app server
(which would be a distinct entity) would manage themselves and the Zope
Hi there,
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
snip
* A clear set of explicit, layered dependencies in software is generally
a good thing. We can start thinking about smaller pieces better. By
splitting up into individually packaged
Chris McDonough wrote:
I believe to get success here (measured as gaining new Python developer
users),
our path forward needs to be way, way, way more radical and needs to involve
making hard choices that treat individual packages on their own merit rather
than even considering their role as
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 18:27, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com wrote:
If it's impossible for these people to agree when discussing on this
mailing list today, why would the suddenly agree on this mailing list
if we call them The Zope Framework Steering Group? I really don't
understand
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
Paul Everitt wrote:
[snip]
Hopefully the Zope Framework proposal helps untangle this, and gets to a
point where you don't have to keep the Uberthing in your head when doing
something small.
It's not small,
Hey Tres,
Could you repost this to a new thread as I think people aren't paying
attention to this thread very much anymore? I'd very much like to make
progress on actual cleanups now.
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
Hi,
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 08:52 +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 08:42, Christian Theune c...@gocept.com wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 08:35 +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:
1. Areas that need somebody responsible should get one. We need
somebody to bug people about bugs in
Lennart Regebro wrote:
I'm talking about a group of people who act as if they're responsible,
not your mythical committee. We should be able to find a bunch of people
with a sense of responsibility, right?
Yes. But I don't think making them a steering group is going to help.
Just to take
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 09:13, Christian Theune c...@gocept.com wrote:
For some reason the argument evades me: People randomly doing stuff will
end in good things. People (trying) to thoughtfully organize won't.
It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact.
No. The steering group should not
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 09:21, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote:
If anything, we started out with too little process and found there were
gaps we had to plug.
Ah. Now, THIS I like. Let's focus on this: Start out with as little
process and as few officialisms as possible. And I don't
Am Montag 02 März 2009 18:11:59 schrieb Chris McDonough:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
The Zope Framework project
==
:Author: Martijn Faassen
:Date: 2009-03-02
Introduction
This document offers suggestions to reorganize our community so we can
Martijn Faassen wrote:
The main innovations in concepts are the name Zope Framework to
distinguish it from the Zope 3 application server and the
core/extra concept. These are all hopefully descriptions of what
are current practices, simply making them more explicit.
From what I read we do
Am Montag 02 März 2009 18:49:43 schrieb Adam GROSZER:
Hello,
I think we need some sort of stering group (or person(s)).
Without rules and decisions to follow we're going to end up like headless
chicken running around in the kitchen. Noone knows the direction.
Exactly. And if we look at other
Am Montag 02 März 2009 19:34:11 schrieb Tres Seaver:
Adam GROSZER wrote:
I think we need some sort of stering group (or person(s)).
Without rules and decisions to follow we're going to end up like headless
chicken running around in the kitchen. Noone knows the direction.
Yes sometimes
Hi
Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] the Zope Framework project
[...]
Grok and Repoze are in part *workarounds* for the
deficiencies in this
community. For Grok I'm very sure it's a workaround, as I had quite
something to do with it and this was explicit in my mind. It's not
*only
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 12:53, Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk wrote:
My impression (from an external perspective) is that Zope Corporation did just
that for Zope 2/3, but nowadays tries to give this role to the community.
No, I don't think we ever tried that. I think we should.
--
Lennart
Am Dienstag 03 März 2009 00:48:38 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 00:16, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com
wrote:
Who is going to make that decision to encourage this? Allow this? You?
Me? Who? Right now, *nobody* is making such decisions and nobody can
properly get
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 13:04, Roger Ineichen d...@projekt01.ch wrote:
You can also call this anticipation the oposit of participation
:)
The big questions now is, do we like to merge this good things
back to the zope core or do we like to stay with different
packages because we can't find an
Am Dienstag 03 März 2009 08:19:37 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 01:51, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com
wrote:
Can you stop using the word committee? I didn't use it. A committee is
a bunch of people who has regular meetings, behind closed doors, to make
decisions.
I find this thread quite ironic.
Martijn Faassen recognizes a problem, namely that there is no
direction in Zope development. Instead, when ideas are put forth lots
of people put in their oar with +1s and -1s and stop energy and cheer
leading one direction or another. In the end the ideas either
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 13:33, Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk wrote:
Hmmm, I have the slight feeling that your opinions are not that far away.
Of course not. This is, as aways, just a question of loudly agreeing.
--
Lennart Regebro: Pythonista, Barista, Notsotrista.
Martijn Pieters wrote:
Would it be possible to focus this discussion around clearer lines?
Create counter proposals if you have to, discuss things on their
merits, but if you cannot add more than a vague +1 and -1, please
refrain.
I think that would be easier if we had a shorter proposal. I
On Mar 3, 2009, at 7:35 AM, Martijn Pieters wrote:
...
And so far I haven't heard any better ideas than
what Martijn is proposing (no, leaving the status quo, deny there is a
problem and steer by majority is not a counter proposal in my view).
It may be that the idea needs some tweaking,
On 3/2/09 10:13 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
We recognised that there was a problem in trying to make sure we
represented the interests of various stakeholders, and that we needed
someone to think big picture in terms of what technologies we adopted
and how we used them.
Just to be clear, I
On 3/2/09 6:36 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
To people who are suggesting we don't need a steering group nor a name
for the Zope Framework, please answer the following questions:
* how will the community make hard decisions where lots of people
disagree? What is the mechanism for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03.03.2009 14:45 Uhr, Paul Everitt wrote:
In the past we've seen things like let's unify Zope by merging the
Zope2 and Zope3 mailing lists get shot down by a couple of loud no
votes. Loud no's have grown paralyzing.
This topic is still
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk wrote:
Am Dienstag 03 März 2009 00:48:38 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 00:16, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com
wrote:
Who is going to make that decision to encourage this? Allow this? You?
Me? Who?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03.03.2009 15:37 Uhr, Kent Tenney wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk wrote:
Am Dienstag 03 März 2009 00:48:38 schrieb Lennart Regebro:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 00:16, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com
On 3/3/09 9:37 AM, Kent Tenney wrote:
I'll chime in as a newbie.
It seems many of the comments preferring ad-hoc to structure
come from we know what we are doing, we can take care of ourselves
I think Zope has the goal of attracting new users, and the proposal
has potential to make Zope
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Andreas Jung li...@zopyx.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- Show quoted text -
On 03.03.2009 15:37 Uhr, Kent Tenney wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Hermann Himmelbauer du...@qwer.tk wrote:
Am Dienstag 03 März 2009 00:48:38
On Monday 02 March 2009, Chris Withers wrote:
Adam GROSZER wrote:
Someone releases a new package version and your project just break the
next day. That's a nightmare.
That shouldn't happen with individual package releases where releases
are done sensibly.
Let me tell you from experience:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
snip
- - How many need *all* of Zope3, including the ZMI? I'm betting that
set is much smaller than either of the others?
Probably none. So having better dependencies would obviously be good. I
On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Martijn Pieters wrote:
The irony is that the proposed solution, organized leadership, is
going to suffer the same fate as the aforementioned ideas. Everyone is
putting in their oar, +1s and -1s are flying right, left and centre,
and this idea is either going to die,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Monday 02 March 2009, Chris Withers wrote:
Adam GROSZER wrote:
Someone releases a new package version and your project just break the
next day. That's a nightmare.
That shouldn't happen with individual package releases
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
What is going to make us more effective is:
* a recognition of current reality, i.e. the Zope Framework is not the
same as the Zope 3 application server and it serves a far wider audience.
*
Hey,
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
snip
- - How many need *all* of Zope3, including the ZMI? I'm betting that
set is much smaller than either of the others?
Probably none. So having better dependencies
Chris Withers wrote:
Adam GROSZER wrote:
Someone releases a new package version and your project just break the
next day. That's a nightmare.
That shouldn't happen with individual package releases where releases
are done sensibly.
(ie: if you're going to do a big backwards-incompatible
On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 09:21, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com
wrote:
If anything, we started out with too little process and found there were
gaps we had to plug.
Ah. Now, THIS I like. Let's focus on this: Start out with as little
On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Tres Seaver wrote:
Stephan, I *have* managed a large set, and I'm *certain* that the KGS is
useful for many cases: it just doesn't work for me for any large
production application: I don't want to rely on the iffy availability
of eggs from PyPI, for instance, which
On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Gary Poster wrote:
My mild counter proposal was this.
- The ZF formally institutes an easy way for people to start Zope
projects
- Hopefully, Martijn F. starts something like the project he described
- Hopefully, people follow it.
In other words, I suppose,
Hi there,
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[snip]
I think Martijn is trying to address something that Zope has lacked for
a while. I don't think it'll solve all of the world's problems, nor do I
think that Martijn things so, but it will make some things - things like
this very debate - a bit easier
Christian Theune wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 02:35 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote:
* leadership could help sustain efforts like we want the Zope Framework
to run on Jython and make detailed decisions based on this. Nobody
right now can really decide on this.
Anecdote: Our current Jython
Hi there,
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[snip]
You and I had a discussion a while back about forking the zope.component
ZCML directives, and how it would've been better to work within the
boundaries of the Zope packages so that everyone who wanted to lose the
zope.security dependency could benefit,
Hi there,
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[snip]
I'm not sure Plone's model fits Zope perfectly, but certainly there are
some lessons to be learned. We also have some of processes and
documentation already in place, having made a few mistakes along the way.
Definitely, I'm very interested in seeing
Hi there,
Lennart Regebro wrote:
1. Areas that need somebody responsible should get one. We need
somebody to bug people about bugs in the bug tracker. That should be
one person, for example. Responsibilities need to be well defined and
individual. There isn't anybody called Someone here, so
Hi there,
Lennart Regebro wrote:
[snip]
No. The steering group should not have backroom discussions. They should
act as open as possible. I think of it as a catalyst.
The operative here is *should*. Compare that to *will*. These are
different words. What the steering group *should* do and
Hi there,
Lennart Regebro wrote:
[snip]
As much as I prefer discussing with people in real life, there is the
notion of no backroom conversations WRT to driving development of an
open source project.
OK. *Cough*. You and Martijn wrote this proposal. And you asked
Stephan about it. You did
Paul Everitt wrote:
On 3/2/09 10:13 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
We recognised that there was a problem in trying to make sure we
represented the interests of various stakeholders, and that we needed
someone to think big picture in terms of what technologies we adopted
and how we used them.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
Stephan, I *have* managed a large set, and I'm *certain* that the KGS is
useful for many cases: it just doesn't work for me for any large
production application: I don't want to rely
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Tres Seaver wrote:
Stephan, I *have* managed a large set, and I'm *certain* that the KGS is
useful for many cases: it just doesn't work for me for any large
production application: I don't want to
Hey Gary,
[panarchist approach where we have people starting groups that could
compete for attention]
I agree that it should be relatively easy to start Zope projects under
the Zope umbrella.
I agree that such projects could compete for attention and may the best
one win.
I think this is
Hey,
Stephan Richter wrote:
[snip]
Actually Martijn tried to be better than that. :-) Instead of just forming a
steering group (which I would interpret as a Zope project) and announcing it
to the community, he asked for feedback first. :-)
Thanks. :)
I probably agree he should have just
Boy, there's no point in trying to outrun this thread, I'd better just
jump in here. Martin I think you said that very well and I'm convinced.
I appreciate and generally support Martijn's proposal. When in doubt,
I'd be in favour of emulating what's been shown to work in the Plone
community - eg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Paul Everitt wrote:
On 3/2/09 10:13 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
We recognised that there was a problem in trying to make sure we
represented the interests of various stakeholders, and that we needed
someone to think big
Hi there,
Chris McDonough wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[snip]
You and I had a discussion a while back about forking the zope.component
ZCML directives, and how it would've been better to work within the
boundaries of the Zope packages so that everyone who wanted to
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
(though I did hear positive news about it). I do have the
impression the framework team strategy works reasonably well; it's been
operating for about 2 releases now?
It works as a way of sharing the load with the release manager. Because
its members don't feel
On 3 Mar 2009, at 18:25, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Ah, so Plone currently has long term direction as they think 2
releases
ahead of just one?
Plone 4 discussions are happening around now, there are demos of
suggested concepts and people generally working on the codebase.
Plone 5 is a
On 3/3/09 2:42 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
And you think it's all due to the brand...
Yes! Someone who *wants* to use basic ZCML directives but doesn't want
zope.security, zope.location, zope.publisher, zope.traversing, zope.i18n, and
pytz can *already* use
Hi there,
I thought I should highlight this characterization of the Zope project
because I agree with much of it but also disagree with much of it.
Chris McDonough wrote:
I have no faith whatsoever that staying on the course we've been on for the
last
9 years (
9 years is a long time, and
Martijn Faassen wrote:
It might be we are able to establish a framework team without
elections by just picking out the bunch of people who are interested in
this.
That's been the Plone approach to creating the framework team. Some
people just decided to do it and didn't even bothered to ask
Chris McDonough wrote:
Sorry, the you above in you scolded was Martin Aspeli, not Faassen.
Note that the scolding had something to do with you breaking Plone
trunk due to a transitive change in Chameleon, and the realisation that
from this point on, any package shared between repoze.bfg and
Tres Seaver wrote:
Different participants will report differently about the success, no
doubt. One unexpected outcome (for some) was classifying the
decisions taken at the PSPS as advisory, just talk, etc: having
no force in governing the more tactical decisions.
I don't know why this
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Okay, I guess we do differ here. I think a leader can provide
encouragement and stimulate people into action, point out interesting
outstanding tasks, and make sure that people who are motivated actually
get grip on improving the project and don't get discouraged. Of
On Mar 3, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey Gary,
[panarchist approach where we have people starting groups that could
compete for attention]
[Had to look up panarchist, but yes, essentially.]
I agree that it should be relatively easy to start Zope projects
under
the Zope
On Mar 3, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Stephan Richter wrote:
On Tuesday 03 March 2009, Gary Poster wrote:
My mild counter proposal was this.
- The ZF formally institutes an easy way for people to start Zope
projects
- Hopefully, Martijn F. starts something like the project he
described
-
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
