Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces

2005-07-01 Thread Chris McDonough
Note that this article is now available without a subscription at
http://lwn.net/Articles/139770/

On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 23:08 -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
 On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 23:05 +0200, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
   From what I read from Rob in an interview in LWN, membership to the
   foundation will be funded by membership dues.
  
  Given that any actual facts and further discussions involving ZC have 
  been postponed to the IRC chat on tuesday (which I'm perfectly fine 
  with), I'm surprised to hear that I have to read LWN, some external and 
  not freely available source, for further details...
 
 I suspect this isn't Rob's fault, he probably didn't know that it would
 be a subscriber-only thing.   The interview will be available for free
 on the 23rd (at http://lwn.net/Articles/139955/) .  But of you're
 desperate, subscriptions at the starving hacker level are apparently
 something stupid low like $2.50US/month.
 
 - C
 
 ___
 Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
 **  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
 (Related lists - 
  http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
  http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
 

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces

2005-07-01 Thread Chris McDonough
Oops, wrong URL!  This is the right one: http://lwn.net/Articles/139955/

On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 23:08 -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
 On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 23:05 +0200, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
   From what I read from Rob in an interview in LWN, membership to the
   foundation will be funded by membership dues.
  
  Given that any actual facts and further discussions involving ZC have 
  been postponed to the IRC chat on tuesday (which I'm perfectly fine 
  with), I'm surprised to hear that I have to read LWN, some external and 
  not freely available source, for further details...
 
 I suspect this isn't Rob's fault, he probably didn't know that it would
 be a subscriber-only thing.   The interview will be available for free
 on the 23rd (at http://lwn.net/Articles/139955/) .  But of you're
 desperate, subscriptions at the starving hacker level are apparently
 something stupid low like $2.50US/month.
 
 - C
 
 ___
 Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
 **  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
 (Related lists - 
  http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
  http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
 

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces

2005-06-18 Thread kit blake
Wow, what a difference two days makes. I heard about the ZF
announcement by telephone two mornings ago, and I breathed a huge sigh
of relief. It solves a problem we've been worrying about for years. It
means we can sit across from a nervous IT director, and when he asks
dubious questions about the steering and future of the Zope platform,
we can say with certainty, It's in good hands.

Reviewing the thread, I'm astonished at the negativity. C'mon, this is
a *breakthrough*. It's a move that can ensure the future of Zope.
Granted, it's prudent to be cautious, and there's a lot of work to be
done, but it's a major step. Shouldn't we be using an Agile approach?

As for structure and neutrality, I think decisions should be left up
to the developers. If they're not on board, there won't be anything.
I'm not much of a developer, I'm a manager, and I know that attempting
to pull developers 'over a bridge' is a bad idea.

Actually, I'm a vendor too. So wearing all these different stakeholder
hats, I'm looking forward to the process. To be explicit: I'm prepared
to invest in the future of Zope.
kit


--
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Infrae . . . kit blake . . . infrae.com . t +31 10 243 7051
Hoevestraat 10 . 3033 GC Rotterdam . NL . f +31 10 243 7052
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists -
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces

2005-06-18 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen

kit blake wrote:

Wow, what a difference two days makes. I heard about the ZF
announcement by telephone two mornings ago, and I breathed a huge sigh
of relief. It solves a problem we've been worrying about for years. It
means we can sit across from a nervous IT director, and when he asks
dubious questions about the steering and future of the Zope platform,
we can say with certainty, It's in good hands.

Reviewing the thread, I'm astonished at the negativity. C'mon, this is
a *breakthrough*. It's a move that can ensure the future of Zope.
Granted, it's prudent to be cautious, and there's a lot of work to be
done, but it's a major step. Shouldn't we be using an Agile approach?

As for structure and neutrality, I think decisions should be left up
to the developers. If they're not on board, there won't be anything.
I'm not much of a developer, I'm a manager, and I know that attempting
to pull developers 'over a bridge' is a bad idea.

Actually, I'm a vendor too. So wearing all these different stakeholder
hats, I'm looking forward to the process. To be explicit: I'm prepared
to invest in the future of Zope.


I'm sorry if I led anyone believe that I view this process negatively. 
That is absolutely not the case. I'm as excited and relieved as you, 
Kit. I personally have been publicly supporting the idea of 
self-governance of the Zope community for some time now and all of this 
brings us a huge step closer to it.


My concerns regarding the process (which might have interpreted as 
negativity towards the whole idea) were mainly oriented towards the 
way the initiation of the process is perceived. All of the 
self-governance we already have (e.g. zope.org collaboration and 
maintainance, Zope 3 development process, etc.) has been built up 
bottom-to-top, just like in any other open source community. Even the 
wish for self-governance of Zope itself came from the basis and has been 
expressed publicly since the Castle sprint or even longer. So, my 
remarks were purely there to state that the perception of this process 
being nothing but top-to-bottom (IOW, vendor-driven) were a limited view 
on things.


As anything else is mere speculation, I'm looking forward to hearing 
more details from those who initiated the process. I am confident that 
everyone in the community will be invited to participate, so that in the 
end we can all say that we as a community made this happen.


Best regards, see you on tuesday in IRC,

Philipp
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce

http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces

2005-06-18 Thread Jean-Marc Orliaguet
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:

 kit blake wrote:

 Wow, what a difference two days makes. I heard about the ZF
 announcement by telephone two mornings ago, and I breathed a huge sigh
 of relief. It solves a problem we've been worrying about for years. It
 means we can sit across from a nervous IT director, and when he asks
 dubious questions about the steering and future of the Zope platform,
 we can say with certainty, It's in good hands.

 Reviewing the thread, I'm astonished at the negativity. C'mon, this is
 a *breakthrough*. It's a move that can ensure the future of Zope.
 Granted, it's prudent to be cautious, and there's a lot of work to be
 done, but it's a major step. Shouldn't we be using an Agile approach?

 As for structure and neutrality, I think decisions should be left up
 to the developers. If they're not on board, there won't be anything.
 I'm not much of a developer, I'm a manager, and I know that attempting
 to pull developers 'over a bridge' is a bad idea.

 Actually, I'm a vendor too. So wearing all these different stakeholder
 hats, I'm looking forward to the process. To be explicit: I'm prepared
 to invest in the future of Zope.


 I'm sorry if I led anyone believe that I view this process negatively.
 That is absolutely not the case. I'm as excited and relieved as you,
 Kit. I personally have been publicly supporting the idea of
 self-governance of the Zope community for some time now and all of
 this brings us a huge step closer to it.

 My concerns regarding the process (which might have interpreted as
 negativity towards the whole idea) were mainly oriented towards the
 way the initiation of the process is perceived. All of the
 self-governance we already have (e.g. zope.org collaboration and
 maintainance, Zope 3 development process, etc.) has been built up
 bottom-to-top, just like in any other open source community. Even the
 wish for self-governance of Zope itself came from the basis and has
 been expressed publicly since the Castle sprint or even longer. So, my
 remarks were purely there to state that the perception of this process
 being nothing but top-to-bottom (IOW, vendor-driven) were a limited
 view on things.

 As anything else is mere speculation, I'm looking forward to hearing
 more details from those who initiated the process. I am confident that
 everyone in the community will be invited to participate, so that in
 the end we can all say that we as a community made this happen.

 Best regards, see you on tuesday in IRC,

 Philipp


Hi!

I believe that what is important at this stage is to avoid what we call
in French a procs d'intention (I couldn't find the English
equivalent) which is a rhetorical figure used to promote a conviction
based on speculation about supposed motives rather than facts. The more
you address such accusations the more you make them appear as real.

regards /JM


___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces

2005-06-17 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen

Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:

This is really great news!

I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key
players in the foundation which would make the foundation even more
vendor-neutral. I am confident that this will go through.


This almost sounds as if the Foundation isn't to be vendor-neutral from 
the start which is certainly not the intention of a foundation. What I 
like about other open source foundations (take the Plone Foundation from 
our community, for example) is that the members are developers, not 
companies. The developers govern themselves, every developer gets a vote.


Philipp
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce

http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces

2005-06-17 Thread Andreas Jung



--On 17. Juni 2005 13:04:17 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:

This is really great news!

I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key
players in the foundation which would make the foundation even more
vendor-neutral. I am confident that this will go through.


This almost sounds as if the Foundation isn't to be vendor-neutral from
the start which is certainly not the intention of a foundation. What I
like about other open source foundations (take the Plone Foundation from
our community, for example) is that the members are developers, not
companies. The developers govern themselves, every developer gets a vote.



I strongly second that. A company driven or ruled foundation is likely not 
very much acceptable for the Zope community.


-aj


pgp77OYFbuwJq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces

2005-06-17 Thread Jean-Marc Orliaguet
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:

 Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:

 This is really great news!

 I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key
 players in the foundation which would make the foundation even more
 vendor-neutral. I am confident that this will go through.


 This almost sounds as if the Foundation isn't to be vendor-neutral
 from the start which is certainly not the intention of a foundation.
 What I like about other open source foundations (take the Plone
 Foundation from our community, for example) is that the members are
 developers, not companies. The developers govern themselves, every
 developer gets a vote.

 Philipp


Hi!

I'm a bit confused, first of all Chalmers is a university, it is not a
software vendor.

Then when I look at the members of the Plone foundation (
http://plone.org/foundation/about/board/list ) I only see companies,
except that ZC is not represented. So even if every member gets a vote,
how much does that vote count in the development process of Zope2, CMF
and Zope3 ?

regards
/JM
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces

2005-06-17 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen

Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:

Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:



Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:



This is really great news!

I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key
players in the foundation which would make the foundation even more
vendor-neutral. I am confident that this will go through.



This almost sounds as if the Foundation isn't to be vendor-neutral
from the start which is certainly not the intention of a foundation.
What I like about other open source foundations (take the Plone
Foundation from our community, for example) is that the members are
developers, not companies. The developers govern themselves, every
developer gets a vote.

Philipp


Hi!

I'm a bit confused, first of all Chalmers is a university, it is not a
software vendor.


I guess you're right. But then I don't understand how Chalmers as a key 
player would make the Foundation more neural with respect to software 
vendors, as you say above.



Then when I look at the members of the Plone foundation (
http://plone.org/foundation/about/board/list ) I only see companies,


I see *people*. If I remember correctly, the Plone Foundation even 
specifically says no to companies, just like the ASF. Of course, that 
doesn't mean that officers of the board in the foundation can't be 
employed somewhere...


Btw, you're looking at the board. But still, they're just people, not 
companies. http://plone.org/foundation/members has the actual members 
list. These are the people that get to vote. As you can see, I'm in this 
list and I don't belong to any company. If this was company driven, I 
wouldn't have a vote.



except that ZC is not represented. So even if every member gets a vote,
how much does that vote count in the development process of Zope2, CMF
and Zope3 ?


Well, it counts. How much does a vote count when you vote for your 
parliament? Little. But it counts.


Philipp
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce

http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces

2005-06-17 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen

Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 17. Juni 2005 13:04:17 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:


This is really great news!

I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key
players in the foundation which would make the foundation even more
vendor-neutral. I am confident that this will go through.



This almost sounds as if the Foundation isn't to be vendor-neutral from
the start which is certainly not the intention of a foundation. What I
like about other open source foundations (take the Plone Foundation from
our community, for example) is that the members are developers, not
companies. The developers govern themselves, every developer gets a vote.



I strongly second that. A company driven or ruled foundation is likely 
not very much acceptable for the Zope community.


Yes.

I wonder, given their experience in bootstrapping a foundation (with all 
the legal complications etc.), has the Plone Foundation been solicited 
for helpful input? Wouldn't make much sense for us to go through the 
same difficult steps if there's someone within our community who has 
done it already...


Philipp
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce

http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces

2005-06-17 Thread Andreas Jung



--On 17. Juni 2005 13:29:33 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Andreas Jung wrote:

--On 17. Juni 2005 13:04:17 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:


This is really great news!

I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key
players in the foundation which would make the foundation even more
vendor-neutral. I am confident that this will go through.



This almost sounds as if the Foundation isn't to be vendor-neutral from
the start which is certainly not the intention of a foundation. What I
like about other open source foundations (take the Plone Foundation from
our community, for example) is that the members are developers, not
companies. The developers govern themselves, every developer gets a
vote.



I strongly second that. A company driven or ruled foundation is likely
not very much acceptable for the Zope community.


Yes.

I wonder, given their experience in bootstrapping a foundation (with all
the legal complications etc.), has the Plone Foundation been solicited
for helpful input? Wouldn't make much sense for us to go through the same
difficult steps if there's someone within our community who has done it
already...



Maybe we should stop discusing these issues and wait until we hear some 
more solid information from ZC about their ZF plans. The ZF is a good idea 
but don't let us kill it in the beginning ...


-aj


pgpZ0WV3GRn1I.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces

2005-06-17 Thread Jean-Marc Orliaguet
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:

 Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:

 Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:


 Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:


 This is really great news!

 I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key
 players in the foundation which would make the foundation even more
 vendor-neutral. I am confident that this will go through.



 This almost sounds as if the Foundation isn't to be vendor-neutral
 from the start which is certainly not the intention of a foundation.
 What I like about other open source foundations (take the Plone
 Foundation from our community, for example) is that the members are
 developers, not companies. The developers govern themselves, every
 developer gets a vote.

 Philipp


 Hi!

 I'm a bit confused, first of all Chalmers is a university, it is not a
 software vendor.


Hi!


 I guess you're right. But then I don't understand how Chalmers as a
 key player would make the Foundation more neural with respect to
 software vendors, as you say above.


I don't know but how do you make something less vendor oriented? That
would require a definition, but essentially you'd bring in non-vendors
(such as academic or non-profit organisations) to provide with some sort
of balance, instead of hiding companies between individuals' names. How
could it be done otherwise?

The code that I'm writing during working hours is (c) Copyright Chalmers
- it can't be otherwise, but it does not mean that I as a developer have
less decision power than the company that I'm working for.

 Then when I look at the members of the Plone foundation (
 http://plone.org/foundation/about/board/list ) I only see companies,


 I see *people*. If I remember correctly, the Plone Foundation even
 specifically says no to companies, just like the ASF. Of course, that
 doesn't mean that officers of the board in the foundation can't be
 employed somewhere...

 Btw, you're looking at the board. But still, they're just people, not
 companies. http://plone.org/foundation/members has the actual members
 list. These are the people that get to vote. As you can see, I'm in
 this list and I don't belong to any company. If this was company
 driven, I wouldn't have a vote.

ah OK. I didn't see that list.

However, most members do not write code during their free time, do they?
What happens when the members write code under working hours, their
respective employers must well have something to say about it?

 except that ZC is not represented. So even if every member gets a vote,
 how much does that vote count in the development process of Zope2, CMF
 and Zope3 ?


 Well, it counts. How much does a vote count when you vote for your
 parliament? Little. But it counts.

 Philipp


I meant to say that the framework underneath (Zope, CMF) is such an
essential component that the development of Plone cannot be dissociated
from the development of CMF or Zope, which today happens to be managed
outside the Plone foundation.

But in the situation where ZC is involved in the foundation as one of
the player, obviously the development of the framework and of core
components managed by the members of the foundation is less concentrated
on one single vendor since others partners have their word to say.
This is a give-and-take situation.

regards /JM

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces

2005-06-17 Thread Stephan Richter
On Friday 17 June 2005 07:16, Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
 Then when I look at the members of the Plone foundation (
 http://plone.org/foundation/about/board/list ) I only see companies,
 except that ZC is not represented. So even if every member gets a vote,
 how much does that vote count in the development process of Zope2, CMF
 and Zope3 ?

Ugh, I hope I misread this. If the foundation or any other instituation ever 
influences the Zope 3 development process, I will not contribute any more. I 
rather have ZC-centric development platform and the freedom to choose what to 
do for a release (in agreement with the other Z3-core developers) than a 
vender-independent foundation with a foundation-driven development cycle.

Also, I agree with Andreas and Philipp that developers should be members, not 
companies. Otherwise, how could I, as an independent developer, have a say? 
BTW, this is also positive for companies, since they can have several 
developers being members. In the proposed scenario, my one-man shop would 
have a lot of power compared to larger companies, such as ZC, Nuxeo, etc.

Regards,
Stephan
-- 
Stephan Richter
CBU Physics  Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces

2005-06-17 Thread Paul Everitt


On Jun 17, 2005, at 1:49 PM, Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:

However, most members do not write code during their free time, do  
they?

What happens when the members write code under working hours, their
respective employers must well have something to say about it?



The PF actually did research on this and got legal help from Eben  
Moglen and the Software Freedom Law Center.  Answer is: almost the  
same way as Apache does it and the FSF does it.  The employer signs a  
contribution agreement *but* is not a voting member of the foundation.


--Paul


___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce

http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces

2005-06-17 Thread Paul Everitt


On Jun 17, 2005, at 1:52 PM, Stephan Richter wrote:


On Friday 17 June 2005 07:16, Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:


Then when I look at the members of the Plone foundation (
http://plone.org/foundation/about/board/list ) I only see companies,
except that ZC is not represented. So even if every member gets a  
vote,
how much does that vote count in the development process of Zope2,  
CMF

and Zope3 ?



Ugh, I hope I misread this. If the foundation or any other  
instituation ever
influences the Zope 3 development process, I will not contribute  
any more. I
rather have ZC-centric development platform and the freedom to  
choose what to
do for a release (in agreement with the other Z3-core developers)  
than a
vender-independent foundation with a foundation-driven development  
cycle.


In the case of the Plone Foundation, the PF is specifically excluded  
from the development process of the community.  Its mandate is  
limited to organizational issues.


Other foundations approach things a bit differently.  (I did quite a  
bit of research on this for the Plone Foundation.)


Also, I agree with Andreas and Philipp that developers should be  
members, not
companies. Otherwise, how could I, as an independent developer,  
have a say?

BTW, this is also positive for companies, since they can have several
developers being members. In the proposed scenario, my one-man shop  
would
have a lot of power compared to larger companies, such as ZC,  
Nuxeo, etc.


Correct.  The essential ingredient, and hardest one for the different  
cultures of different communities, is to establish the definition of  
merit.  Is it only code?  If so, how much and what kind?  If not,  
what else is valuable?


Most of the successful communities have a (subjective) definition of  
merit, used to evaluate membership.


--Paul

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce

http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces

2005-06-17 Thread Paul Everitt


On Jun 17, 2005, at 2:49 PM, Stefane Fermigier wrote:


Paul Everitt wrote:

Other foundations approach things a bit differently.  (I did quite  
a  bit of research on this for the Plone Foundation.)




Eric has done some research recently on the different successful  
Open Source / Free Software foundations out there that have the  
mission to develop and promote great software.


We're looking for a model that is just as acceptable for the single  
developers (who are a very key elements in the community, and  
provide some of the best work around - see Stefan or Philip for  
instance, but there are many others whitout whom Zope and specially  
Zope3 would not exist as we know them today) but also for the  
companies and organisations that depend on Zope for their business  
and are willing to commit ressources to the development of the  
software (this includes software development houses like Zope Corp,  
Infrae, Nuxeo and 10s of others, but also companies or universities  
or non-profit that depend on Zope for their ongoing operation -  
like Chalmers university or like the SD houses customers).


:^)

IMHO, vendor-neutral means, in this context, that the Foundation  
must take into account the interests of all the stakeholders  
(individual hackers, vendors, customers), and shouldn't be  
interpreted as vendor-free.


The governance model should take that into account, and not limit  
itself to only individuals are members (of course, companies are  
represented by individuals, but what happens if the individual in  
question leaves a member company for another?).


First, let's agree that this isn't pre-decided.  That the community  
will get the governance model it wants.  Agree?


Second, can you find examples that support this?  For example, here's  
what Apache says:


http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles

All of the ASF including the board, the other officers, the  
committers, and the members, are participating as individuals. That  
is one strength of the ASF, affiliations do not cloud the personal  
contributions.



Here's what GNOME Foundation says:
http://foundation.gnome.org/membership/

Membership eligibility is an individual determination: while  
contributions made in the course of employment will be considered,  
they will generally be ascribed to the individuals involved, rather  
than accruing to all employees of a contributing corporation.



These are two very successful open source projects.  However, there  
is nothing to suggest that our culture is the same as these others.   
What's most important is that the rules are defined by the  
community.  Let's ensure that the bootstrapping group is representative.


--Paul
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce

http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces

2005-06-17 Thread Chris McDonough
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 07:52 -0400, Stephan Richter wrote:
 Also, I agree with Andreas and Philipp that developers should be members, not 
 companies. Otherwise, how could I, as an independent developer, have a say? 
 BTW, this is also positive for companies, since they can have several 
 developers being members. In the proposed scenario, my one-man shop would 
 have a lot of power compared to larger companies, such as ZC, Nuxeo, etc.

+1 if only because...

From what I read from Rob in an interview in LWN, membership to the
foundation will be funded by membership dues.  I think the dues
structure is what will eventually determine who can afford to become a
member.  I'd definitely pay for membership if I could credibly afford
it.  It seems like the easiest way to make sure this could happen is to
charge on a per-person basis rather than on a per-company basis, with
larger companies signing up more individuals as necessary/desired.

- C


___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces

2005-06-17 Thread Stefane Fermigier

Paul Everitt wrote:
Other foundations approach things a bit differently.  (I did quite a  
bit of research on this for the Plone Foundation.)


Eric has done some research recently on the different successful Open
Source / Free Software foundations out there that have the mission to
develop and promote great software.

We're looking for a model that is just as acceptable for the single
developers (who are a very key elements in the community, and provide
some of the best work around - see Stefan or Philip for instance, but
there are many others whitout whom Zope and specially Zope3 would not
exist as we know them today) but also for the companies and
organisations that depend on Zope for their business and are willing to
commit ressources to the development of the software (this includes
software development houses like Zope Corp, Infrae, Nuxeo and 10s of
others, but also companies or universities or non-profit that depend on
Zope for their ongoing operation - like Chalmers university or like the
SD houses customers).

IMHO, vendor-neutral means, in this context, that the Foundation must
take into account the interests of all the stakeholders (individual
hackers, vendors, customers), and shouldn't be interpreted as vendor-free.

The governance model should take that into account, and not limit itself
to only individuals are members (of course, companies are represented
by individuals, but what happens if the individual in question leaves a
member company for another?).

Anyway, the model I have in mind it the one of the Eclipse Foundation,
but I haven't done that much research, and as I said before, I am very
open to discussion.

I hope we will be able to discuss this further next week, but also that
these discussions will be able to procede with the technical side of
things during the sprint next week.

Regards,

S.

--
Stfane Fermigier, Tel: +33 (0)6 63 04 12 77 (mobile).
Nuxeo Collaborative Portal Server: http://www.nuxeo.com/cps
Gestion de contenu web / portail collaboratif / groupware / open source!

begin:vcard
fn:Stefane Fermigier
n:Fermigier;Stefane
org:Nuxeo
adr:;;14, rue Soleillet;Paris;;75020;France
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:CEO
tel;work:+33 1 40 33 79 87
tel;fax:+33 1 43 58 14 15 
tel;cell:+33 6 63 04 12 77
url:http://www.nuxeo.com/
version:2.1
end:vcard

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces

2005-06-17 Thread Stefane Fermigier

Stefane Fermigier wrote:


I hope we will be able to discuss this further next week, but also that 
these discussions will be able to procede with the technical side of 
things during the sprint next week.


s/with/alongside/

Sorry for my poor english.

Remember that some of us are not native english speakers and that
sometimes communication is made harder for that reason.

S.

--
Stfane Fermigier, Tel: +33 (0)6 63 04 12 77 (mobile).
Nuxeo Collaborative Portal Server: http://www.nuxeo.com/cps
Gestion de contenu web / portail collaboratif / groupware / open source!

begin:vcard
fn:Stefane Fermigier
n:Fermigier;Stefane
org:Nuxeo
adr:;;14, rue Soleillet;Paris;;75020;France
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:CEO
tel;work:+33 1 40 33 79 87
tel;fax:+33 1 43 58 14 15 
tel;cell:+33 6 63 04 12 77
url:http://www.nuxeo.com/
version:2.1
end:vcard

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces

2005-06-17 Thread Jean-Marc Orliaguet
Chris McDonough wrote:

On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 07:52 -0400, Stephan Richter wrote:
  

Also, I agree with Andreas and Philipp that developers should be members, not 
companies. Otherwise, how could I, as an independent developer, have a say? 
BTW, this is also positive for companies, since they can have several 
developers being members. In the proposed scenario, my one-man shop would 
have a lot of power compared to larger companies, such as ZC, Nuxeo, etc.



+1 if only because...

From what I read from Rob in an interview in LWN, membership to the
foundation will be funded by membership dues.  I think the dues
structure is what will eventually determine who can afford to become a
member.  I'd definitely pay for membership if I could credibly afford
it.  It seems like the easiest way to make sure this could happen is to
charge on a per-person basis rather than on a per-company basis, with
larger companies signing up more individuals as necessary/desired.

- C

  


There are different aspects: there is the involvement of individual
developers and there is the involvement of the company / university /
organisation without which the developers would not be able to sustain
development outside their spare time. So reducing involvement to a
collection of individual members is not very representative of reality.
If a company has put a lot a stake in a given technology (meaning not
only financing a handful of developers) but taking a technological risk
at supporting zope , it ought to weigh in the balance. Then of course
everyone is free to do development in their spare time.

regards /JM





___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces

2005-06-17 Thread Philipp von Weitershausen

Chris McDonough wrote:

On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 07:52 -0400, Stephan Richter wrote:

Also, I agree with Andreas and Philipp that developers should be members, not 
companies. Otherwise, how could I, as an independent developer, have a say? 
BTW, this is also positive for companies, since they can have several 
developers being members. In the proposed scenario, my one-man shop would 
have a lot of power compared to larger companies, such as ZC, Nuxeo, etc.



+1 if only because...

From what I read from Rob in an interview in LWN, membership to the
foundation will be funded by membership dues.


Given that any actual facts and further discussions involving ZC have 
been postponed to the IRC chat on tuesday (which I'm perfectly fine 
with), I'm surprised to hear that I have to read LWN, some external and 
not freely available source, for further details...


Philipp
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce

http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces

2005-06-17 Thread Chris McDonough
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 23:05 +0200, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
  From what I read from Rob in an interview in LWN, membership to the
  foundation will be funded by membership dues.
 
 Given that any actual facts and further discussions involving ZC have 
 been postponed to the IRC chat on tuesday (which I'm perfectly fine 
 with), I'm surprised to hear that I have to read LWN, some external and 
 not freely available source, for further details...

I suspect this isn't Rob's fault, he probably didn't know that it would
be a subscriber-only thing.   The interview will be available for free
on the 23rd (at http://lwn.net/Articles/139955/) .  But of you're
desperate, subscriptions at the starving hacker level are apparently
something stupid low like $2.50US/month.

- C

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: [Z3lab] Nuxeo supports Zope Corp announces

2005-06-16 Thread Jean-Marc Orliaguet
Eric Barroca wrote:

 Hello,


 Following the announces from Zope Corporation yesterday about their 
 willingness to create a Zope Foundation (that would manage 
 independently Zope 2 and Zope 3 projects) and to participate actively 
 in the Z3ECM project, I would like to express briefly Nuxeo's 
 position about all the news.

 First, we would like to thank Zope Corporation for Zope 2 and Zope 3 
 as Open Source software, they are amazing products !

 For us as far as we know, the Zope Foundation is a really great news. 
 This will probably solve the main issues we heard from people in the 
 community and from some customers (brand and copyright security). 
 It's really great news that Zope Corporation is now ready to go 
 further on the community way and involvement. We are ready to help as 
 much as needed in establishing the ZF as a vendor-neutral 
 organisation with the mission to develop and promote a great 
 technology (like the Apache or Eclipse Foundations).
 The Zope Foundation will, IOHO, a big step towards project 10X to 
 establish Zope as a leading development platform for all kinds of web 
 and internet applications.

 On the Z3ECM project, we are very glad that Zope Corporation wants to 
 actively join the project !
 We are certain that having ZC resources on this project will clearly 
 help to build better products and solidify the platform.

 We will also support the move of the Z3ECM project to the ZF when the 
 issues of copyright ownership will be discussed with the project 
 stakeholders. It could definitely help unifying CMS zope community 
 and will give more credibility to the platform from a customer point 
 of view.

 We will also support the move of the Z3ECM project to the ZF when the 
 issues of copyright ownership will be discussed with the project 
 stakeholders

 In short, we are really happy and excited, and will definitely 
 supports ZC to move forward on these topics with the other members of 
 the Zope community.

 I'm pretty confident that the whole community will support this as well.


 Best regards,

 EB.

 --
 ric Barroca, Tel: +33 6 21 74 77 64 (mobile).
 Nuxeo Collaborative Portal Server: http://www.nuxeo.com/cps
 Gestion de contenu web / portail collaboratif / groupware / open source!
 www.nuxeo.com - www.cps-project.org - www.indesko.com


Hi!

This is really great news!

I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key
players in the foundation which would make the foundation even more
vendor-neutral. I am confident that this will go through.

regards /JM

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )