On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Hermann Himmelbauer <du...@qwer.tk> wrote: > Am Dienstag 03 März 2009 00:48:38 schrieb Lennart Regebro: >> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 00:16, Martijn Faassen <faas...@startifact.com> > wrote: >> > Who is going to make that decision to encourage this? Allow this? You? >> > Me? Who? Right now, *nobody* is making such decisions and nobody can >> > properly get away with saying they allow it. Leadership is a way to get >> > out of it. >> >> I think open source in general has shown two things: >> >> 1. Communities can mostly take decisions without having official >> authorities to do so. This is hyper democratic. >> 2. When they can't, usually committees can't either. In those cases >> somebody with a deciding vote is needed. This isn't democratic at all, >> but efficient. > > Exactly. And that's what we currently don't have. > >> > +1, though a simple discouraging of utterance can't accomplish it by >> > itself. What you need is active leadership that encourages such >> > experimentation. >> >> I don't know about that. I agree with you that there hasn't been >> active leadership for a while. But look what has happened without this >> active leadership. >> * We have two cool new Zope 3 based frameworks. One which throws out >> the whole concept of ZCML for doing configuration by radical code >> introspection, and as a result making the Zope Framework immensely >> more accessible. And another one which experiments with revamping the >> way Zope publishes things, and a related effort of rewriting the whole >> publisher. Both frameworks have during these experimentation reached >> big audiences and gained widespread if still experimental acceptance >> in the community. > > True - but to me it seems that this happened because someone took leadership > in this scenario. > >> * Zope 2 has been eggified. >> * Buildout has totally massacred all other forms of deployment of Zope >> projects. > > All that is true and very positive, but what has not happened and maybe never > will that way, is the aggregation of all those Zope 3 efforts, documentation, > website and the like. And that is something very important in order to > attract a broader user base. > >> > Who decides to kill something off? >> >> If it doesn't get maintained, is dead. I guess you want somebody to >> make it official. I'm not sure it's necessary in a component based >> reality. With Zope 2 eggified for example, ZClasses gets a separate >> module, and it lives as long as somebody maintains it. It's then just >> a matter of deciding if it should be a part of the release or not, >> which the release manager(s) decide. > > That's fine for one thing: Newbies don't know which packages are maintained > and which are not. They find themselves confronted with a bunch of packages > and don't know what they should use and what not. Example: zope.formlib vs. > z3c.form. > For instance, I decided to use lovely.remotetask - but I recognized that the > last commit is quite some time ago and don't really know if it's actively > used/maintained.
I'll chime in as a newbie. It seems many of the comments preferring ad-hoc to structure come from "we know what we are doing, we can take care of ourselves" I think Zope has the goal of attracting new users, and the proposal has potential to make Zope more inviting to the uninitiated. Zope is very diffuse, making it a challenge to grasp. I know I would benefit from any initiative which sought to provide an overview role. Thanks, Kent > >> > Who decides we should have a documentation website for a widely used >> > component. >> >> Those who writes the documentation in question. :) > > In some way, that's already done - nearly every package has some doctest, > which does often cover the package specifics very well. However, I remember > the days I looked at z3c.form: I recognized that I needed to get to know the > following other packages: > > - interfaces/adapters > - z3c.pagelet > - z3c.template > - (and quite some more) > > This was very cumbersome. > >> > * who reminds us of necessary tasks and directions we're going into? >> > Sometimes the community collectively decides on moving forward. >> > Sometimes it doesn't. Are we really maintaining our issue tracker well, >> > say? >> >> No, but then a person should get some sort of responsibility for that. >> Note: A person. Not a committee. A committee means a bunch of people >> are responsible, which is the same thing as saying that nobody is. > > Yes, that's probably true. So either this steering group is "a person" or has > some person who decides. > > Best Regards, > Hermann > > -- > herm...@qwer.tk > GPG key ID: 299893C7 (on keyservers) > FP: 0124 2584 8809 EF2A DBF9 4902 64B4 D16B 2998 93C7 > _______________________________________________ > - Show quoted text - > Zope-Dev maillist - zope-...@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 ) > _______________________________________________ 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 )