Maik Röder wrote:

> Hi,
>> Here we are supposed to have the notion of cooperation diluted in some
>> sort of undefined abstract notion of cooperation between anonymous
>> participants that have to leave their badge at the entrance.


> When I say neutral, I mean "not dominated by the interests of one
> company".

This won't happen if different partners are willing to commit and have
their logo displayed --- not as an advertisement, but as an
endorsement.. Everyone does that in the Java world, why should it be
different here? I was thinking more of a consortium, a community of
common interests ...

> I could rephrase my question to:
> "How do you make sure that people don't get the impression that the
> project is in the hand of a company, and not in the hands of a
> healthy community? Do you plan to create dome kind of community
> foundation?"
>> In terms of
>> marketing this is a very bad move because it shows that no one is
>> willing to step forward, commit and endorse the project.
> Before endorsing the project I just need to be sure that there is
> a healthy community.

catch-22 :-)  to have a healthy community you need a project that is not
just vapourware and more than just people with good intentions who'll
wait until others do something. You need commitment from all parts.

the whole process is currently based on fear, driven by reaction.

this is human psychology. The discussion about the community is not the
real issue:
- if others do something and I don't do anything I'll be left outside
and I won't have decision power.
- as long as no one does anything, I'm not outside, but nothing
happens... Good, I'll wait and hope that it will continue.

this is the opposite of a community, this is disguised individualism.

>> We should instead put the logos of the companies that contribute with
>> code, design etc... this will incite others to join.
> That would be great.
> Best regards,
> Maik Röder

Best /JM
Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to