Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
[snip]
It is a bit like this: the zope2 community wants the zope3 technology
and zope3 wants the zope2 community.
I like this analysis. :)
I think the question about the technology should be treated as such
on a technical level, by bridging the technical gap (Five, common
repositories, writing tutorials for zope2 developers, collaborating
on common modules, adapting zope2 concepts like TTW editing to Zope3
but without reproducing the zope2 skin and templates mess, etc).
But the question about the communities involves more complicated
aspects, i.e. marketing issues, licenses, competition, strategies,
etc. The repository is not the answer. This has to be solved on a
higher level, Zope Foundation, updated ZPL license, ... where a
social contract is agreed on.
Be careful with what you're implying with words: marketing aspects
more complicated than code, "higher level", etc. I don't necessarily
agree with the underlying assumptions.
While I fully support efforts surrounding the Zope Foundation, I
really think that this is not the right level to solve community
issues. A Foundation can make social contracts all they like, for
instance, but if people in the community don't follow them, nothing
will happen.
Marketing issues and strategies are frequently happening a bit more
subtly than you seem to say here. The difference between the
"technical" and the "community" level is far less clear than you make
it seem.
Five, for instance, is *not* just a technical project. It never has
been. Five is a community project at least as much, to change people's
*minds*, to merge communities, to change the shape of the Zope
business, as much as it's to make technical changes. That's why
there's talks given about conferences, for instance. These things go
hand in hand.
Merging the repositories is also not just technical. It's clear enough
that it's not -- the discussion in this thread is not about technical
issues *at all*. They're about impact on the people involved in Zope 2
and Zope 3 development.
So let's not pretend that everything can be solved on a technological
level even though lots of it can ..
We're in open source. Our solutions are frequently technological *and*
community-based. That's the point of open source. Let's not
artificially separate the two issues.
Regards,
Martijn
Hi Martijn,
I think you're mixing the notions of "community" and of "community of
interests".
I don't think that the goal is to merge communities, the goal is to make
good software and not have different entities fight on framework
technologies. It is to stir common *interests* in the technology.
On the technical level CMF is used by many, but still different
communities. Five is a community project used by different communities.
This also shows that technology merge does not entail community merge,
because everyone comes with different goals, backgrounds, and this is sound.
Python is a community project, not everyone who uses python is in the
same community (reads the same mailing-lists, go to the same
conferences, develop with zope or twisted, ) even though there is a
strong community of interests.
I think that you want technology merge in the first place, and not force
people into communities through technology.
Regards,
/JM
_______________________________________________
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
