Hi Martijn. I think a tool to assess the impact on each project is necessary. A risk assessment of some type could realistically quantify, identify imported code, estimate of the size of the community depending upon the sources, provide rough conversion estimates, and also identify alternatives to P3K. Risk assessments for the frameworks teams (willing to conduct an assessment) can be put together with a general impact statement from the framework and library project leaders and presented to the python team. Efforts should be coordinated with deadlines.

A statement of general impacts could include those anticipated by the communities being served by sources, and include general impacts assessed on future marketing and consumption of what will soon become legacy code. It should also include an answer to why porting to P3K will be different that previous porting scenarios. The effort should include the formulation of recommendations to the python team. The objective is not to restrict the effort of the python team, but to assist the team in guiding their decisions. It is more difficult to dismiss facts and figures.

Before proceeding with anything, the perspective from our own project leadership needs to be communicated and clarified. I have not yet heard anything from Jim or Zope Corporation on whether there may already be a plan of sorts to address P3K. I'm only willing to become involved on the basis there is consensus from our own project and that the effort is supported.

I would recommend the Zope Foundation meet on this soon to at least build consensus and agreement on how this effort should be handled. Consultation with the Plone Foundation would go a long way in establishing their buy-in to this process. I believe a general statement should be communicated back to the zope lists in the form of an announcement when an assessment/coordination strategy has been determined. It ought to convey the action that will be taken to assess the impact and the efforts that will be made to coordinate with other projects to meet the future python release. This should give folks a sense that something is being done to work together cooperatively with our communities and the python team to address change. If there is consensus, I'd recommend the ZF appoint at least one key Board member to direct and to be accountable for these efforts. This will be a critical junction in zope's history. I am not a ZF member but am prepared to assist with this effort together with other interested folks.


Martijn Faassen wrote:

David Pratt wrote:
Communication with the core python team on impacts could create a cohesive strategy for the future and improve buy-in if there can be agreement on how to move forward.

While I fully agree, my one (accidentally started) communication with the core Python team on my worries surrounding this left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I'll just need to get over that, I know, and I'm sure I put my foot in my mouth in a few places, but when people express their worries they shouldn't be responded to in the way I was responded to. Anyway, you can expect defensive responses from the Python 3000 developers and we'll need to get past that.

It may be difficult to get more unified support from the light framework project leadership since porting these frameworks will take less time. In any case, I believe this dialog likely needs to come sooner rather than later, particularly from the leadership of the framework projects. I am not sure if some of this at least occurring informally, but I get a sense that formal discussion with the python team is needed soon and well before P3K is ready. It would at least provide some sense of how we will be navigating inevitable changes to the language (and to determine impacts on the zope framework and our own development decisions). With a plan and some consideration by the python team, the objectives of P3K may not seem so bad.

You're making very good points. We should indeed come up with a strategy to approach the leaderships of other web frameworks and large libraries, to see whether we can get a common communication channel going, to which we should invite the core developers.

David, could you take the lead on this? I think we need to come up with an announcement inviting people, a mailing list, and a wiki, to start with. I'd be happy to help with this, but we need someone else to take the lead (my reputation with the core developers has been damaged by the previous fracas anyway). I can coordinate this effort with the Zope Foundation board should it be needed.

The best initial strategy, I think, would be to approach some individual figures within these communities privately to gauge their interest and see whether we can come up with a joint position of some kind.



Zope3-dev mailing list
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/fairwinds%40eastlink.ca

Zope3-dev mailing list
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to