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. 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


I believe that what is important at this stage is to avoid what we call
in French a "procés 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  -
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to