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.
Martijn Faassen wrote:
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.
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev mailing list