On Jul 8, 2007, at 7:48 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > On 7/8/07, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > I don't understand why your talks are assumed to be uninteresting to > non-Zope-users (how much evidence do you have?
A fair bit. I've had people tell me, "Oh, I'm not going to that, it's a Zope talk." Also, based on who's in the audience. This isn't always the case, but it is too often IMO. > ), but I have a feeling > that the "branding" of generally useful functionality with a > particular framework's name is just bad politics. I agree that it's > unhealthy for that functionality to be ignored, but the solution is > not to complain about people's behavior (that's rarely going to change > the behavior being deplored) but to become sensitive to the problem > that the brand *apparently* causes and switch to a different brand. Your point is well taken wrt the zope name. I find this phenomena applies to "zc" as well. I use the zc namespace so that my package names can be descriptive without creating annoying name conflicts. Is "zc" a brand? It seems reasonable that namespace package names should reflect organization names. If that makes them too brand- laden, then how should people pick namespace names? Should we pick random letters? Should I use namespaces like "python", "web", or maybe "nice"? ;) Aside from the more general issue, in the context of web software, I hope we can reuse each others components without having to rename everything. What a waste of time that would be. Does this have to be so political? Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
