Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Sunday 19 April 2009, Tres Seaver wrote:
>> -1.  As a branding choice (as opposed to a technology), "Zope 3" *is* a
>> dead-end:  it implies a strategy (replacing Zope 2) which we no longer
>> believe in.  I think the consequences of the brand confusion are hard
>> for those uf us "inside" to estimate, but they are far from trivial.
> I never communicated to anyone that I believe that Zope 3 is a successor of 
> Zope 2. Other people pushed that message.

That message has been out there from the start, no matter how it arose. 
One way this conclusion was reached was the obvious 3 versus 2. We need 
to fix that situation.

>> Continuing to "push" that brand is confusing to outsiders, who don't
>> understand why anyone would still be using "Zope 2" four years after the
>> first release of "Zope 3".  The folks who are using "Zope 3" can
>> certainly cope with a split / rename.
> That's easy for you to say, since you have no vested interest.

Stephan, I do think we should seriously consider renaming Zope 3 to 
something else. But not to Zope Toolkit; we should of course say that a 
lot of the code in Zope 3 moved to the Toolkit, but we shouldn't just 
get rid of the rest of the concept, no matter how vague that is right now.

If there is to be a new name for Zope 3 and the people involved in it 
can commit to it, I can write a short piece of text that describes what 
is going on for the upcoming story site, and we can coordinate on 
communicating the message without the community. Even without a new name 
I can write such a message, but it's going to be harder for people to 
understand what's going on, as people frequently don't read a lot (and 
why should they?).

Getting everybody on message will be crazily hard given the intense 
disagreements that exist on the way forward, but it is also the only way 
forward out of this mess and towards resolving the disagreements.



Zope-Dev maillist  -
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to