On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 18:00:04 -0000, Stephan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hi Joel,

I hope your app is season-ready. :-)

On Thursday 02 February 2006 11:50, Joel Moxley wrote:
Does this make sense?  It's only a small rebrand (and the Zope3 stays
intact) and an assembly of components that already exist.  Basically,
you can use this occasion as a coming out party... "Zope3 is here, and
we're for real".

-1 for any renaming.

Just curious, but why? Also, he's not suggesting any renaming, only a "codename" to distinguish Zope 3 from Zope 2. I mean, the leap between Z2 and Z3 is hardly a single major version in anyone else's book. It's more like moving from Visual Basic to Python. Or something. (okay, poor comparison, but it's a major paradigm shift)

Bottom line, I think the proof is in the pudding, and Zope3 quality is
superb so it's not going anywhere.  But a little better
organization/marketing to the outside world could go a long way.

Actually, the Zope 2 and Plone community are starting using Zope 3 heavily so
the marketing will come.

I would like to think that every little help. Plone doesn't necessarily market Zope (2), it markets itself as a CMS product. Plone developers are unfortunately poor at contributing to CMF, let alone to Zope core. With the amount of web frameworks out there (And the amount of CMS's) and the amount of noise Ruby-on-Rails is generating, it would be a shame if Zope lost out because no-one had time to make some noise about it. Those very same Plone and Zope 2 developers will be more likely to push towards Zope 3 if they feel others are using it, are convinced it has a future, and are convinced they will be able to collaborate with developers on unrelated products.

Zope 2 and CMF buy-in is probably necessary for Zope 3 to grow, but I'm not convinced it's sufficient. Or at least that we should settle for it.



Zope3-users mailing list

Reply via email to