whit wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
zc.buildout is in no way zope specific. Can a Zope developer not develop a tool without it being stamped as "zope specific"?
maybe... maybe not. When a developer struggles with more than one tool from the same general source, it matters little to them whether one depends on the other or not. That's true for languages, companies, frameworks and everything else.

I think it really depends whether something transcends it's immediate community(and maybe here whether a z floats in front of it's name somewhere).

So lets see. To contribute to the wider Python community, I should
change the name of my Company or change jobs. Hm.

for packages from zope or plone people, if they rides roughly with existing python techs

In what way does buildout "ride roughly with existing python techs".
It builds on setuptools.  Do you mean that if there is another
community package that does something somewhat similar, we aren't
allow to create a similar package just because we are associated with
the Zope project.

 > and come from a zopeish repository,

Oh, I have to use a different repository.

sadly they are liable to get branded w/ a legacy reputation that haunts the name.

Has it occurred to you that the problem here doesn't lie with the
Zope project or Zope developers?

inversely, those of us zope and plonistas may be a bit uncritical of projects coming from close to home

Oh, as someone who gets lots of criticism, I really don't think that
is much of a problem.

and allow such technologies to stay inaccessible to wider audiences.

How are we doing this?  The primary forum for discussing buildout
is the distutils sig.  It is released through PyPI.  It doesn't depend
on any other technology that we use -- other than Python.

What should I do to make it more accessible?

jim, this is not a personal attack on zope corp or the good work you guys have done.

It is merely an observation about our entire community concerning some of social factors pertinent to this end of the python pond stated as an answer to what was obviously a rhetorical question by you. I apologize if it seemed otherwise.

You should read what you said above carefully, if you haven't already.

I won't address your new set rhetorical questions/statements, except to say that we, zope community in toto, are the only people who can take action on our side of our relationship with the rest the world.

That's right, we are the only ones who can take action on our side. So,
what have we done:

- We've adopted standard technologies that let us work with others,
  like setuptools and wsgi.

- We are actively looking at ways to leverage other technologies,
  (e.g. templating technologies and paste deploy).

- We designed Zope 3 specifically to more easily leverage and be
  leveraged by other systems,

- We are splitting up our software and distributing it as eggs
  to the wider Python community.

- We actively participate in the Python community, through conferences
  and sigs.

in making zc.buildout a widely useful minimal dependency technology and by taking part in this conversation(as acrimonious as it may seem at this point), I think you are positively effecting this relationship.

I hope so, That's why I'm participating.  But, is there any reason why
discussions like this have to be acrimonious?  Here are some suggestions
(these are for all of the participants here):

- Stick to technical content.  Try to resist attacking people's attitudes
  and motivations, which you might not really know.

- On technology, please try to stick to specifics that people can actually
  respond to, rather than generalities.


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
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to