Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey Philipp,

Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:

Here's my 2 cents, even if I might be too late (but hey, when should
I have brought this up?): I think it's a *bad* idea to host Zope 3 on
its own site, because:

a) It will be yet another systems we need maintainance volunteers
for. As it seems we don't even have enough for the current
right now. If we had more volunteers with more time on their hands,
they would have already been on the matter and the dog-slow system
would have been improved a long time ago (note that I'm not
necessarily saying replaced). A will eventually need some
caching, it will eventually need user management, etc. We already
have a human resource problem on the development side, what makes
everyone think we won't have it on the maintainance side?

A counterargument to this would be that volunteers to maintain the
present infrastructure and content are hard to find. A leaner,
meaner, separate might find more people that want to be involved.

Exactly.  Unfortunately, is a mess.

My hope (and I suggested this sprint topic) was that, as Martijn said,
we could get a lean mean useful site for Zope3.

My hope is that, if this happens, that this might be a useful prototype
for a future site.

In the long run, my hope is that we will have a single zope site
that talks about both Zope 2 and Zope 3.  Perhaps, if the zope3 site
is successful, then the zope 3 site will morph into a combined site.

Sorting out the content of, which has been carried around for
more than half a decade, is a job I wouldn't volunteer for. Helping to
write some content for a fresh new site and figuring out what fits where
is something I *am* volunteering for.


Putting WYSIWYG integration into a list of first-class todo items
seems like wrong prioritization to me (I'd rather have a stable
backend first),

You are probably right.

An HTML only wiki was my idea because I find wiki markup, of it's
various flavors to be a real obstical to collaboration. I appreciate
that not everyone agrees with me on this.  It was, probably, unfair of
me to request this.

What I want most is a table usable, with
as a possible first step toward that goal.

I think it's important to try to separate the content
production/technology aspect of things, which the sprint apparently
focused on from the actual site content aspects.


 From what I can see, the sprint focused on using Zope 3 technologies to
build a Zope 3 site. To use Zope 3 for a Zope 3 site seems a good idea
from the marketing perspective already --  we want to demonstrate we can
> eat our own dogfood.

My expectation is that it might also make it more likely for people
to want to help with development and maintenance.

> The idea seems to have been to use a wiki for this,
something which also has a predecent within the Zope community, as well
as in the open source community at large.

The advantage of Wiki, IMO being that it requires the least up front
design. :)

> The whole WYSIWYG HTML-edit
wiki thing is a neat idea involving using HTML as the wiki markup
language instead of something else. We'll just have to see how that
works out.

While I really want this, I don't want it to get in the way of
a successful site.


Jim Fulton           mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]       Python Powered!
CTO                  (540) 361-1714  
Zope Corporation
Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to