On Tuesday 21 February 2006 05:38, Stefane Fermigier wrote:
> However, I believe like you Philipp, that both initiatives should be
The two things are decoupled as section 2 does not require section 3. I
decided to leave it in the same document for several reasons:
(1) Bandwidth. Discussing two proposals of this size separately requires a lot
(2) I fear that the ZSCP would be talked to death and stay dead. My experience
in the Open Source world has shown that if something does not have
practicality, it dies unless someone is getting paid. I am certainly not
getting paid for this. By biggest interest here is to bring the
sub-communities together and define communication means on the code level.
(3) If the ZSCP is discussed in too much abstraction, it will distance itself
from what we can and want to do. While writing I have always used the Common
Repository as reality check.
(4) If the two were talked about separately, I think we would go back and
forth on what information and process is needed. Right now, with the Common
Repository in mind, I know exactly that the steps of the ZSCP will work.
Overall, once we have a general agreement, section 2 will be lifted out of the
proposal anyways to represent the first set of rules for the ZSCP. This
document is proposal not just the rules.
BTW, I am sorry for the confusion. I should have documented this better. I
know I had in the earlier version, but it must have got lost. I have now
added a section right at the beginning of section to communicate the
CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
Zope3-users mailing list