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
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 -