On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 02:06 -0800, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Chris Withers wrote:
> > Martin Aspeli wrote:
> >> I have no way of judging whether that's a valid comparison, without
> >> knowing how
> >> much maintenance zope.org will see
> > Assume zero, that's all it's ever received in the past...
This is not true.
> Would you ever expect a customer's site to live with zero maintenance
> indefinitely? Perhaps if it was less of a pain to maintain and the
> contributor agreement and other red tape didn't make it so hard to
> volunteer, someone would be able to spend a few hours a month making sure
> the site is alive.
Hopefully the bar is decreased to contribute.
> >> plone.org doesn't see much continuous maintenance.
> > So it doesn't get upgraded when there's a Plone release?
> Yes it does. Which means that if zope.org didn't deviate too much from the
> plone.org setup (i.e. it didn't do anything crazy and unsupported) it would
> likely migrate just as easily as plone.org itself (which would be the first
> test anyway).
In the future, zope.org (will) migrate easily. Before I left ZC, I went
into the plone channel asking for assistance, and when it was learned
the version of Plone we were on, there was little encouragement for any
sensible migration. That said, it doesn't matter today. Today zope.org
sucks and we're working to fix that.
> >>> Yup, but one that is much much simpler that any framework. It doesn't
> >>> need to be complicated and it doesn't need 90% of the features that
> >>> things like Plone or CPS add to the mix...
> >> What complexity would you get rid of exactly?
zope.org shouldn't have membership - people should not be able to dump
crap on it which can easily bit-rot. That said, there should be a site
for people to use as a sandbox or playground, but where the 'front site'
for the technology comes in, it should be limited in scope to promoting
the software, providing excellent docs, software (zope.org CVS only) and
promoting the Zope Vision. Anything that does not directly contribute
to this is not necessary and should go.
> > Every single line of code that Zope.org doesn't use ;-)
> So instead of installing a piece of software that is built for your use
> case, is proven to work very well in a near identical deployment (you've yet
> to tell me how zope.org would be much different from the current plone.org)
> and comes with the support and experience of people who have built that very
> same website, you'd like to spend a lot of time and effort building a custom
> solution that is tailored to your use case slightly more exactly, and in the
> process land whoever builds that with all the support, maintenance and
> future-proofing burden.
> And the argument that this was the original promise of Plone on zope.org
> would be valid if only for the fact that zope.org is running an out-of-date,
> heavily (and probably unnecessarily) customised version of Plone that was
> not built on the principles that make it possible to rely on the Plone
> community to maintain the software. In fact, I believe the Plone community
> rasised some concerns the last time around that zope.org was being built in
> such a way that the Plone community would be unable to help maintain that
> particular branch of the software. That doesn't mean that it's impossible
> for the Plone community to work with whoever takes charge of building a new
> zope.org, to learn from their experiences with plone.org and with building
> customer sites.
> What's your professional estimate on the amount of time and effort it would
> take to build, test, configure and deploy a codebase for zope.org that meets
> your (still unclear to me) criteria? How much would the opportunity cost of
> that be at the rates you charge your customers?
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the Zope - web forum at Nabble.com.
> Zope-web maillist - Zopefirstname.lastname@example.org
Zope-web maillist - Zopeemail@example.com