* Lennart Regebro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011130 11:24]:
> From: "Andrew Kenneth Milton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Noone from Zope Corp seems to monitor the list to help out.
> That is not my experience at all. I have received answers from Zope corps
> several times. But sure, most of the answers you get come from the community
> members. Thats what a community is all about, and thats the hallmark of a
> good community.
> The best community I have seen is for the Clavia Nord Modular synthesizer.
> Clavia contributes abolsutely NOTHING to that community. They do, however,
> listen to it, and implement several of the features that are most requested
> in that community. And that is not an open source project, so the community
> can't contribute anything else than ideas.
Personally, I think ZC are trying very hard, but are not getting it
right. I'm also very sure they are taking this conversation
seriously. Brian responded very quickly to the userfolder 'api'
issues. They commit a *lot* in terms of software and support (IMO)
but little in terms of fostering a community. But then, why should
*they* be responsible for this?
If we think we're a community, then we should all be responsible for
building on it. I think we should have a conversation about what
makes a community work, and then come up with some positive
suggestions about improving the community *ourselves*. ZC will
follow, for sure.
There must be members of various OSS communities knocking around
here. Python, XML things, Apache Foundation, GNOME. What are
peoples' experiences? Which are the best? Why?
I'm not sure about the ideal community, but here's some practical
ideas to start off with.
1) Just because no-one can ever agree about splitting up the
mailing lists, what's to stop somebody setting one up unilaterally?
Perhaps the people who care strongly about this should just set up
an egroup? I'm sure ZC would link to it from zope.org. Come on
somebody, set up a forum at [EMAIL PROTECTED], today,
right now, and continue the discussion there.
2) How about the responsiveness of ZC? Granted, it could be much
better, but they're *trying*. Let's help them with suggestions.
Look at the fishbowl. It's an open process, but doesn't get
contributed to that much. What are the problems with it? How can
we improve it? I think it should be linked from zope.org more
prominently, for a start. I think the wiki format puts people off
because they're not familiar with it. How about a familiar-looking
discussion board on each proposal, too?
3) Another thing mentioned regularly: the zope.org community site is
I think, just as the respository is beginning to
open up, so should construction of zope.org. There should be a
mailing list, some members of the community should be appointed to
some kind of committee, and ZC should always have some
representation on it. But it should be led by the people for whom
it exists in the first place, IMO. Collectively, we have a vast
array of talented designers, programmers, information
architects, etc, at our disposal. Will ZC countenance this
proposal? If not, should we be working on our own community site?
These may be crap ideas, I don't know; but I think we *can* do
something about these issues, collectively. We shouldn't just ask ZC
to do something about it. Carpe diem and all that.
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -