Re: [Zope-dev] DISCUSS: Community checkins for CVS

2001-10-01 Thread Toby Dickenson

On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 08:27:13 -0400, Paul Everitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

Martijn Faassen wrote:


  http://dev.zope.org/CVS/Contributor.pdf

 
 This says 'you must indicate your agreement to the term below'; shouldn't
 it be 'terms'?


Uhh...well...yes!  I'll make the change.  I'm waiting for news back from 
the lawyer about provisions for handling patches.  I'll then post a new 
rev of the materials.

Does anyone think this is close enough that I can go ahead and get the 
bootstrap group (under ten, selected by us) going?  I'd like to avoid 
making them sign and mail an agreement, then do it again if there's 
substantive changes.

Yes, I think it is close enough to get started.

Toby Dickenson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

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



Re: [Zope-dev] DISCUSS: Community checkins for CVS

2001-10-01 Thread Toby Dickenson

On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 16:13:57 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time), Paul
Everitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

So, let's begin what I'm sure will be a lively and illuminating
discussion. :^)

A question about Joint Ownership

The ZPL currently includes a no-liability clause. If one half-owner
were to make the source available under a different license without
such a clause, would the other half-owner be liable too?



Toby Dickenson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

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



Re: [Zope-dev] DISCUSS: Community checkins for CVS

2001-09-26 Thread Dieter Maurer

Paul Everitt writes:
  We'll probably work up some boilerplate such as, I'm going to commit 
  your patch to Zope.  It's going to be available under the ZPL and the 
  joint ownership model of the Zope Contributor Agreement.  Please respond 
  agreeing that you understand the ZPL, the joint ownership model, and 
  allow this contribution under these terms.
  
  How does that sound?
We should make this implicit!
... if possible as all under US law (and in view of the overwhelming
power of US lawyers ;-)).

  When someone submits a patch, then we can assume that
  the submitter does not only allow but wants that
  his patch is used in the Zope codebase, under
  the well known conditions for the Zope code.

I once had to sign such a patch use agreement for Python.

   It has been a 10 line patch including 6 lines of comment.
   Both me and Guido knew it has been pure stupidity to
   make such a fuzz about it, just to please lawyers


Please check, whether it is possible that submitting a patch
is sufficient that the patch can be used as far as the
submitter is concerned. There may be other rights infringed.
That still may need to be checked for significant changes.



Dieter

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



Re: [Zope-dev] DISCUSS: Community checkins for CVS

2001-09-25 Thread Martijn Faassen

Paul Everitt wrote:
 At last, the announcement I've been dying to make.  After much
 deliberation -- meaning, I've procrastinated for too long :^) -- I'm
 pleased to announce our approach for opening the CVS repository to
 community checkins.

Cool, at last!

   http://dev.zope.org/CVS/Contributor.pdf

This says 'you must indicate your agreement to the term below'; shouldn't
it be 'terms'?

Regards,

Martijn


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



Re: [Zope-dev] DISCUSS: Community checkins for CVS

2001-09-25 Thread Paul Everitt

Martijn Faassen wrote:


  http://dev.zope.org/CVS/Contributor.pdf

 
 This says 'you must indicate your agreement to the term below'; shouldn't
 it be 'terms'?


Uhh...well...yes!  I'll make the change.  I'm waiting for news back from 
the lawyer about provisions for handling patches.  I'll then post a new 
rev of the materials.

Does anyone think this is close enough that I can go ahead and get the 
bootstrap group (under ten, selected by us) going?  I'd like to avoid 
making them sign and mail an agreement, then do it again if there's 
substantive changes.

--Paul





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



Re: [Zope-dev] DISCUSS: Community checkins for CVS

2001-09-25 Thread Chris Withers

Paul Everitt wrote:
 
 Does anyone think this is close enough that I can go ahead and get the
 bootstrap group (under ten, selected by us) going?  I'd like to avoid
 making them sign and mail an agreement, then do it again if there's
 substantive changes.

Yup :-)

Chris

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



Re: [Zope-dev] DISCUSS: Community checkins for CVS

2001-09-25 Thread Zopista

 Does anyone think this is close enough that I can go ahead and get the 
 bootstrap group (under ten, selected by us) going?  I'd like to avoid 
 making them sign and mail an agreement, then do it again if there's 
 substantive changes.

Go for it.



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



Re: [Zope-dev] DISCUSS: Community checkins for CVS

2001-09-25 Thread Paul Everitt


OK, a response.  Sorry for the delay.

First, I'll change the part of the introduction that says:

  Essentially, a committer signs an agreement stating that all
code that the committer submits has been created by her.

...to say:

  Essentially, a committer signs an agreement stating that all
   code that the committer submits has been created by her, or
   that she has verified that the contributed code violates
   no rights.

Which means that we're going to take you up on your suggestion for 
encouraging small patches.  I just added this to the FAQ:

   8) Does someone have to jump through all these legal hoops just to
   submit a small patch?

 The contributor agreement certainly is a heavy process for someone
 that wants to make a small contribution, such as a patch.  These
 contributions are just as important to the health of an open
 source project as major code work.  Thus, Zope should encourage
 patch contributions, not create an enormous disincentive.  At the
 same time, integrity of the code base needs to be maintained.

 For small contributions, simply supply them through a
 communications channel such as the bug tracker or the mailing
 lists.  Alternatively, contact a committer or ZC directly.  A
 committer will then review the patch and assume the legal issues
 of committing it themselves.  Likely they will contact the patch
 submitter and get a confirmation that the patch can be used.

 The committers will have some guidelines on recognizing when it is
 reasonable to accept a patch.  It should be clear when something
 has little basis for being deemed intellectual property, versus a
 major change with advanced algorithms.

In your note, you mentioned:

   I suppose that I could assign them those rights, but personally I
   find that idea repugnant since I don't believe in intellectual
   property grin.  (Hmm.  If I put my stuff in the public domain, how
   would that play in?)

Repugnancy aside :^) your second comment is on the mark.  It isn't so 
much that you need to assign and lose ownership.  Rather, the 
committer needs to ensure that they aren't violating your rights.

We'll probably work up some boilerplate such as, I'm going to commit 
your patch to Zope.  It's going to be available under the ZPL and the 
joint ownership model of the Zope Contributor Agreement.  Please respond 
agreeing that you understand the ZPL, the joint ownership model, and 
allow this contribution under these terms.

How does that sound?

--Paul

R. David Murray wrote:

 On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Paul Everitt wrote:
 
So, let's begin what I'm sure will be a lively and illuminating
discussion. :^)

 
 First, would it be possible to put up a copy of the Contributor
 Agreement in html format?  If you feel the only legal version for
 signing is the PDF one fine, but it would be a lot easier for people
 to check it out if there is an html version to read.
 
 Second, I suppose you should be aware of my biases before reading
 anything more.  I don't believe in intellectual property, either
 copyright or patent.  On the other hand, they are currently the
 law of the land; and, within what seems to me to be fair use kinds
 of standards, I try to respect copyrights while encouraging people
 to use vehicles that make use of as few of the restrictions imposed
 by copyrights and patents as possible.  (You will guess that I am
 *not* a fan of the GPL, though I consider it far superior to a
 traditional copyright grin.) Also, I am not a lawyer and don't
 pretend to be very up on the subtleties of copyright law, so my
 concern may turn out to be naive.
 
 I very much like the intent stated in the Introduction, that
 of getting maximal rights into the hands of both the contributors
 and Zope Corporation to do things in the future with the code
 without having to get an endless set of sign-offs.
 
 However, I have a concern about the Agreement that isn't covered
 in the Introduction or the FAQ.  I'm worried that the Agreement
 may exclude us from some of the benefits of the bazaar model of
 open source development.
 
 My key concern is summed up in this statement from the Introduction:
 
   Essentially, a committer signs an agreement stating that all
code that the committer submits has been created by her.
 
 The actual agreement does *not* say this, but essentially it does
 require it, since the things the committer has to swear to in
 submitting the code are very difficult to swear to unless he or
 she is the author of the code.
 
 Now, I have only contributed small amounts of code to Open Source
 projects so far.  But I'm sure there are a lot more people out there
 who have only contributed small amounts than those who have contributed
 whole modules, and that there are even fewer people who do so much
 work that jumping through these kinds of legal hoops, and agreeing to
 a certain amount of liability, is worth while.  In the cases where
 I have 

Re: [Zope-dev] DISCUSS: Community checkins for CVS

2001-09-25 Thread R. David Murray

On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Paul Everitt wrote:
 Repugnancy aside :^) your second comment is on the mark.  It isn't so
 much that you need to assign and lose ownership.  Rather, the
 committer needs to ensure that they aren't violating your rights.

 We'll probably work up some boilerplate such as, I'm going to commit
 your patch to Zope.  It's going to be available under the ZPL and the
 joint ownership model of the Zope Contributor Agreement.  Please respond
 agreeing that you understand the ZPL, the joint ownership model, and
 allow this contribution under these terms.

 How does that sound?

Sounds like a workable process, if an email acknowledgement is enough.
Perhaps you could also make some such language part of a click through
during the process of submitting a patch to the server?

I think for myself just labeling things as public domain will work
fine, but I know that won't work for everyone.

--RDM


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



Re: [Zope-dev] DISCUSS: Community checkins for CVS

2001-09-25 Thread Michael R. Bernstein

On Tue, 2001-09-25 at 09:19, Paul Everitt wrote:
 
 We'll probably work up some boilerplate such as, I'm going to commit 
 your patch to Zope.  It's going to be available under the ZPL and the 
 joint ownership model of the Zope Contributor Agreement.  Please respond 
 agreeing that you understand the ZPL, the joint ownership model, and 
 allow this contribution under these terms.

Might it make sense to require (or perhaps just request) that the
confirmation email be signed with a public key?

Just my $0.02,

Michael Bernstein.


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



Re: [Zope-dev] DISCUSS: Community checkins for CVS

2001-09-25 Thread Michael R. Bernstein

On Tue, 2001-09-25 at 05:27, Paul Everitt wrote:

 Does anyone think this is close enough that I can go ahead and get the 
 bootstrap group (under ten, selected by us) going?  I'd like to avoid 
 making them sign and mail an agreement, then do it again if there's 
 substantive changes.

Full speed ahead, and damn the torpedoes!

Michael Bernstein.


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



Re: [Zope-dev] DISCUSS: Community checkins for CVS

2001-09-24 Thread Paul Everitt


Here's the answer, added to the FAQ (but I haven't updated the page yet):

   7) Can I provide my contributions under a different license, as
   stated in the License section of the Zope Contributor Agreement?

 In summary, yes but no.  You don't pick the license that you use
 when you give it to us.  Rather, we pick the license to give it to
 others (for our 1/2), and that license is the ZPL.  You, however,
 can pick any license in the world to give the code to anyone other
 than us.

 This language about a different acceptible license is there in
 case we decide at some point to change from the ZPL to a different
 open source license.

Make sense?

--Paul

Morten W. Petersen wrote:

 On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Paul Everitt wrote:
 
 
So, let's begin what I'm sure will be a lively and illuminating
discussion. :^)

 
 First man out?  :-)
 
 Will a ZPL-ish license [1] be accepted (declared, ref. paragraph
 4 of the Zope Contributor Agreement) by the Zope Corporation?
 
 [1] http://www.thingamy.org/tpl
 
 -Morten
 
 




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



Re: [Zope-dev] DISCUSS: Community checkins for CVS

2001-09-23 Thread Joachim Werner

 I imagine that the group will decide rules on peer reviewing.  For
 comparison, the Mozilla group has very elaborate rules for checkins,
 while Python has pretty much an innocent until proven guilty culture.
 (That is, you check something in, and if somebody complains, it gets
 removed.)

 I don't think it is worthwhile trying to form these rules a priori.

That's fine. I just wanted to put it onto the agenda ...

  We need rules like NO FIXES BETWEEN FINAL BETA AND RELEASE (Absolutely
no
  fixes I mean) -- and those rules should apply to everybody.

 Again, we'll let the rules come out of the group.  For instance, what if
 an Emacs #foo.py# accidentally got checked in?  Would you really require
 another beta release for that?  Betas are a cost incurred by hundreds of
 people around the world.

My personal opinion is that, apart from the version number, a final beta
should be exactly the same as the actual release. Accidentally checked-in
stuff can cause accidents. So there is some reason for a careful release
policy.

But in your specific case, if the final beta that should lead to a release
has been actually released (and tagged in the CVS), how should somebody be
able to check something into it afterwards? That could only happen if there
are problems with the CVS configuration and usage I guess ...

 Ahh, the it's the Wiki's fault argument.  I just checked the zip
 mailing list archive.  9 messages since Aug 1st.  So neither email nor
 Wiki are good choices.  Can you point to an example of a process that
 worked better for designing APIs?

I don't blame the Wiki in general. Wikis (together with mailing lists) are a
good start. Sometimes we'd just need real meetings on real conferences I
guess ...

Joachim


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



Re: [Zope-dev] DISCUSS: Community checkins for CVS

2001-09-21 Thread Anthony Baxter

 Morten W. Petersen wrote
 Will a ZPL-ish license [1] be accepted (declared, ref. paragraph
 4 of the Zope Contributor Agreement) by the Zope Corporation?
 [1] http://www.thingamy.org/tpl

Um, this license would seem to have the obnoxious advertising clause 
problem - it requires you to put the This product... blah blah in. If 
you end up with 25 different contributors with the same sort of clause, 
you're going to have a complete shambles.

Anthony

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



Re: [Zope-dev] DISCUSS: Community checkins for CVS

2001-09-21 Thread R. David Murray

On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Paul Everitt wrote:
 So, let's begin what I'm sure will be a lively and illuminating
 discussion. :^)

First, would it be possible to put up a copy of the Contributor
Agreement in html format?  If you feel the only legal version for
signing is the PDF one fine, but it would be a lot easier for people
to check it out if there is an html version to read.

Second, I suppose you should be aware of my biases before reading
anything more.  I don't believe in intellectual property, either
copyright or patent.  On the other hand, they are currently the
law of the land; and, within what seems to me to be fair use kinds
of standards, I try to respect copyrights while encouraging people
to use vehicles that make use of as few of the restrictions imposed
by copyrights and patents as possible.  (You will guess that I am
*not* a fan of the GPL, though I consider it far superior to a
traditional copyright grin.) Also, I am not a lawyer and don't
pretend to be very up on the subtleties of copyright law, so my
concern may turn out to be naive.

I very much like the intent stated in the Introduction, that
of getting maximal rights into the hands of both the contributors
and Zope Corporation to do things in the future with the code
without having to get an endless set of sign-offs.

However, I have a concern about the Agreement that isn't covered
in the Introduction or the FAQ.  I'm worried that the Agreement
may exclude us from some of the benefits of the bazaar model of
open source development.

My key concern is summed up in this statement from the Introduction:

  Essentially, a committer signs an agreement stating that all
   code that the committer submits has been created by her.

The actual agreement does *not* say this, but essentially it does
require it, since the things the committer has to swear to in
submitting the code are very difficult to swear to unless he or
she is the author of the code.

Now, I have only contributed small amounts of code to Open Source
projects so far.  But I'm sure there are a lot more people out there
who have only contributed small amounts than those who have contributed
whole modules, and that there are even fewer people who do so much
work that jumping through these kinds of legal hoops, and agreeing to
a certain amount of liability, is worth while.  In the cases where
I have contributed, it's just been, oh, cool, thanks for the patch,
with no legal discussion and maybe an acknowledgment in the contributors
file.

My concern here is that under a regime such as this one, if I write
ten lines of code that adds a feature I and a few other people
really need in Zope, it is *not* going to get committed.  I'm certainly
not going to sign that agreement and become a committer just for
ten lines of code, and I much doubt that Zope Corporation is going
to want to go to the overhead of vetting my application just for
ten lines of code.  But if I wrote those ten lines, it hardly seems
that any other contributor can commit them, since they don't own
any rights to them that they can assign to Zope Corporation.  I suppose
that I could assign them those rights, but personally I find that
idea repugnant since I don't believe in intellectual property
grin.  (Hmm.  If I put my stuff in the public domain, how would
that play in?)  But aside from that, jumping through legal hoops
(there would presumably have to be some sort of written assignment
of rights) for ten lines of code is at the very least going to have
a dampening effect on small contributions.

Of course, you could get around this problem by having the committer
rewrite the small submissions, but this seems a bit disingenuous,
and it seems to me it might be legally questionable.  In other
words, under this Agreement, exactly what is the legal status
of a one or two line patch?

So, the many small contributions that make a bazaar software project
tend rapidly toward high quality, which is one of the things I got
the impression you are trying to achieve by opening up the CVS
repository, may not materialize under this Agreement.  We'll have
just about the same situation we have now, except that there will
be more committers and therefore, one hopes, an increase in the
pace of (controlled) change.  An improvement, yes, but can we do
even better?

Of course, I could be completely wrong in my guesses about the
dynamics, but I figured somebody should play the devil's advocate
here grin.

--RDM


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



Re: [Zope-dev] DISCUSS: Community checkins for CVS

2001-09-21 Thread Joachim Werner

Hi Paul! Hi list!

In the last couple of weeks I have really looked forward for the CVS to be
finally opened. Not that I would be the first to be accepted as a
contributor (my Python is still lousy, as Stephan Richter could tell you
...), but I read things from ZC like We are too busy to get contributed
patches from the tracker into the CVS! and on the other hand guys like
Martijn Faassen begging for being allowed to help ...

So this decision will be the beginning of a new Zope age ;-)

What I haven't found on the CVS site yet is anything about peer-reviewing
contributions before they go into the main tree. While I sometimes have the
feeling that there are fixes from ZC people that should NOT have made it
into a release, there are many patches from the community that are not
getting into a release for a long time (this is not a very scientific
statement, just my personal feeling).

We need rules like NO FIXES BETWEEN FINAL BETA AND RELEASE (Absolutely no
fixes I mean) -- and those rules should apply to everybody.

We maybe also need an improved process for designing new API extensions etc.
One case for that is the Zope Internationalization Project
(http://www.eurozope.org/zip/FrontPage), which better sooner than later
should become a core project. I have the feeling that with the current Wiki
approach it will take ages to agree on a syntax for internationalization in
Zope. I don't mean that we need a single implementation. But we need an
agreed-on syntax that is part of the standard Zope package, so that a ZPT or
DTML Method will not break if it uses translation tags.

Joachim


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



Re: [Zope-dev] DISCUSS: Community checkins for CVS

2001-09-21 Thread Paul Everitt


This is a good point, and one that we need to settle on pretty quickly. 
  The language is an artifact from the Mozilla contributor form, which 
served as the starting point for this.  We intended to follow it, but 
with the advent of the joint ownership idea (which came late in the 
process), we might want to revisit it.

Either way, I'll get an answer for you, thanks!

--Paul

Morten W. Petersen wrote:

 On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Paul Everitt wrote:
 
 
So, let's begin what I'm sure will be a lively and illuminating
discussion. :^)

 
 First man out?  :-)
 
 Will a ZPL-ish license [1] be accepted (declared, ref. paragraph
 4 of the Zope Contributor Agreement) by the Zope Corporation?
 
 [1] http://www.thingamy.org/tpl
 
 -Morten
 
 




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



Re: [Zope-dev] DISCUSS: Community checkins for CVS

2001-09-21 Thread Dieter Maurer

R. David Murray writes:
  ...
  So, the many small contributions that make a bazaar software project
  tend rapidly toward high quality, which is one of the things I got
  the impression you are trying to achieve by opening up the CVS
  repository, may not materialize under this Agreement.  We'll have
  just about the same situation we have now, except that there will
  be more committers and therefore, one hopes, an increase in the
  pace of (controlled) change.  An improvement, yes, but can we do
  even better?
I think (and indeed I really hope) that your anxiety is not founded.

  The Zope Contribution Initiative took Python as model.
  There, you have beside contributors a bug tracking system
  where problems can be reported and patches posted to.

  I do not know the details of Python development process,
  especially the legal agreements behind it.
  But somehow, it seems to work...



Dieter

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



Re: [Zope-dev] DISCUSS: Community checkins for CVS

2001-09-21 Thread Paul Everitt


I'll reply in more depth later (on the way out for my b-day dinner), but 
in short: I think the issue of overhead on patches is something for us 
to consider.  We won't do something that breaks the integrity of the 
code base, but there might be ample discussion directions.  Thanks!

--Paul

Dieter Maurer wrote:

 R. David Murray writes:
   ...
   So, the many small contributions that make a bazaar software project
   tend rapidly toward high quality, which is one of the things I got
   the impression you are trying to achieve by opening up the CVS
   repository, may not materialize under this Agreement.  We'll have
   just about the same situation we have now, except that there will
   be more committers and therefore, one hopes, an increase in the
   pace of (controlled) change.  An improvement, yes, but can we do
   even better?
 I think (and indeed I really hope) that your anxiety is not founded.
 
   The Zope Contribution Initiative took Python as model.
   There, you have beside contributors a bug tracking system
   where problems can be reported and patches posted to.
 
   I do not know the details of Python development process,
   especially the legal agreements behind it.
   But somehow, it seems to work...
 
 
 
 Dieter
 




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



Re: [Zope-dev] DISCUSS: Community checkins for CVS

2001-09-21 Thread Michael R. Bernstein

On Fri, 2001-09-21 at 15:51, Paul Everitt wrote:
 
 I'll reply in more depth later (on the way out for my b-day dinner)

Hey, happy birthday, Paul!

Michael Bernstein.


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



Re: [Zope-dev] DISCUSS: Community checkins for CVS

2001-09-20 Thread Morten W. Petersen

On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Paul Everitt wrote:

 So, let's begin what I'm sure will be a lively and illuminating
 discussion. :^)

First man out?  :-)

Will a ZPL-ish license [1] be accepted (declared, ref. paragraph
4 of the Zope Contributor Agreement) by the Zope Corporation?

[1] http://www.thingamy.org/tpl

-Morten


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