On 4/20/09 3:35 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> 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.

I think Martijn's right on this point.

FWIW, there was a mailing list setup to discuss this when it came up in 
Jan 2003:


Here's a useful thread showing a dialog between Seb Bacon, Jim, and me:


We have arrived at a different result, of course, but it is still useful 
to agree on the background.

We also had the discussion when the decision was made to drop the X in 
Zope 3X, without fulfilling one part of the bullet points for why there 
was an X.

Stephan, I agree that you didn't communicate that message.  But I think 
it is pretty easy to show that Zope communicated that message, 
officially and unofficially.


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

Reply via email to