-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>> We have contributed quite a few bug fixes to CMF, though that has been
>> hampered by problems getting CVS access (I sent in my contributor form
>> over a year ago and have yet to hear anything; as Tres has indicated,
>> this has been a problem for several other Plone developers as well).
> I'm hoping that will move along faster now. That's out of the hands of
> any of the active developers unfortunately.
I am working with Jim and Andrew to expedite access for Geoff and for
Alec Mitchell. Please let me know of any other Plone folks who want to
contribute to CMF but whose repository access is "stuck".
>> We have also offered some fairly substantial pieces of code to the CMF
>> (Archetypes, CMFFormController, SpeedPack), but have met with
>> indifference and/or active rejection. I have several products I think
>> could find a home in the CMF, but given the response to previous offers,
>> I'm not sure it's worth the trouble to make the offer.
> I don't claim to know the details of how that went down, but I
> distinctly remember from the time both Tres and I were still at ZC that
> Tres offered to incorporate AT and have it become part of CMF. I'm not
> sure who exactly he talked to, but from what I remember that was met
> with the same indifference you're attesting the CMF community.
One issue was licensing; contributor access may also have been a
problem for some folks. I think the discussion around Archetypes, in
particular, ended up stalled over the question of whether to "code
generation" design should be preferred over "configuration-based" design
(as found in CPSSchemas, for instance).
>> In general, I sense a fair amount of hostility to Plone expressed on the
>> list in the form of gratuitous sniping.
>> If you want us to participate, it might help to play more nicely.
> I would like to note that CMF != Plone. Plone is the largest
> "consumer", correct, but that doesn't mean everyone who uses CMF uses
> Plone, or that individual participants are forbidden to have a negative
> opinion about Plone. Life on mailing lists is tough and full of taunts
> and flame throwing. The CMF list is actually one of the least
> "offensive" lists I am on.
"Gratuitous" is the key here -- neither the CMF nor Plone are perfect
pieces of software, and we can all be honest (and even fairly peeved, at
times) about that. We shouldn't have to attribute malice or stupidity
to each other over that fact, however: there is plenty enough blame to
Geoff, we *do* want the Plone developers to participate here. Some of
the past history we can let pass, in order to share better in the
future. In general, we would like to see "infrastructure" components
shared, where possible.
> That said, I have heard some good ideas from e.g. Paul about how to
> re-align the "factions" better in the future and I hope both Paul and
> Tres can talk about it more in Vienna, and pull in suitable Plone
> leaders. It would help everyone if the CMF side opened up a little more
> to ideas coming down from Plone, and if the Plone side stopped
> reinventing wheels that would be much better off (and benefit everyone)
> in the CMF or other non-Plone core products.
Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests