On Sep 18, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> This is from a note I sent yesterday to the ZTK steering group
> Christian, Jim, Stephan), proposing criteria for removing packages
> the ZTK. Martijn has already updated the docs to reflect some of the
> criteria: I figured I would throw the rest out for discussion:
> - - If a ZTK package isn't used by at least Zope2 and Grok, it
> isn't getting the love needed to stay at an appropriate quality level
> to meet the ZTK goals. Given that the Zope2 developers have as an
> explicit goal removing dependencies on *any* zope.app.* package, I
> obviously believe that such packages should not be part of the ZTK.
> - - Any package which doesn't have real narrative documentation
> into its 'docs' subdirectory, or a commitment from a maintainer
> to create such docs, should be on probation.
> - - Any package which depends on a zope.* package which is *not* part
> of the ZTK should itself be removed from the ZTK.
> - - As a corollary, any package which depends on any other
> package is automatically probationary itself.
> - - (A little more speculative) Any package which doesn't have one or
> more clearly-identified maintainers should be probationary.
> - - Packages which remain in the probationary status for a given
> (three months? six?) should be removed from the ZTK.
> The overall goal here is to keep the ZTK as coherent as possible, and
> avoid "bitrot" by focusing on the packages which are in active use by
> more than one project.
Do you happen to have a list of packages that would be affected by
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -