Hi Martijn. Yes, it needs thinking and action since it will take months to communicate, assess, and to pull this together in a cohesive way. I see the need for a key board member to be accountable to the Foundation for this effort. It is really a matter of oversight and to ensure this gets done. Because communication is at the heart of this, this member would have the responsibility of keeping the Zope Foundation informed and keeping the issue on the agenda (until an outcome has been determined). There will also be the need to ensure that communication is coming from the Foundation so the overall effort is directed in a reasonable way that the ZF wishes.

The ZF is its own legal entity with the responsibility for Zope. There is a difference between accountability and tasking folks to do this sort of work. Any number of people may be involved in an effort with no accountability, but ultimately this is a issue for the Zope Foundation and I believe it needs to take responsibility for steering this - it is important to the future of Zope. I expect most of the effort will come from folks that are not on the ZF itself but would hope that the core organizations that use Zope for their development and income to get behind it as well.


In any case, I'll leave this with you to bring this the Foundation. If there is consensus on at least moving forward with this, a formal plan can be formulated of how this should be done. I am prepared to draft it. A plan can be reviewed by the ZF, accepted and communicated before it is executed. At least this way the ZF will have decided what will be done and when and with some established time lines. If we do not plan and put this in motion, I think we are complicit in accepting the consequences (with the understanding the outcome may have been different if we tried). I expect the python team will welcome the effort of cooperation among the python framework and library communities to respond to the impact of backwards incompatibility. It is important that there is a basis for this through risk assessment to the projects since anything else will just be seen as reactive.

Regards,
David

Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,

Thanks for the write-up. This needs some thinking. I will bring this up on the board, too.

As a general point: the foundation board is happy to appoint someone as its official representative in this and back them up where needed, but I think it's unlikely at this point we'll be having a board member taking the lead on any of this. If this is important to the community, the community will start driving this effort.

Regards,

Martijn

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

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

Reply via email to