1) Audience==Middle class: Keep the name Zope to apply to the
application server and the middle class. Basically, Zope is the
2) Audience==Python: Pick a new name for the top-level package of
components. For example: "zed3" for the naming. E.g.
zed3.pagetemplates. (Examples: SchoolTool, Tiks, Oxfam America via
Enfold, etc.) Don't heavily brand zed3.
By "middle class" do you mean the developers between the trivial PHP
system and the enterize-l33t J2EE system? If so, I think that marketing is
right (and very lucurative).
I think your proposal separates out the Zope-name-is-good from the
Zope-name-is-bad camp well. It doesn't have to be a dichotomy (unless we
let emotions get in the way).
Your idea and Jeff's are fairly compatible. I too would like to see the CA
be made more useful outside Zope, and frankly, no-one will ever require
their users to download Zope-3.tar.gz in order to install some simple
application that just happens to use the CA. This may well re-invigorate
the community, if people who've build a simple application with the CA
decide they want to contribute at that level, or start building web
applications. Hell, I'd like to use the Z3 CA for a non-web-application,
but I don't think I could justiy having Zope 3 as a dependency!
Similarly, I think a lot of developers would like to not be confused by a
ZMI that may or may not be an application and content types that may or
may not be useful or possibly just a demo (actually, I don't fully
understand this yet myself) but feel that they have a powerful web
development paradigm under the Zope 3 banner with the aesthetic of the
Zope 3 CA (Zed?) CA.
Zope3-dev mailing list