Stephan Richter wrote:
> On Thursday 24 August 2006 16:54, Benji York wrote:
>> Stephan's ZSCP proposal suggests using the package name "z3c" for
>> "community" packages.  IOW, packages that aren't part of a larger
>> collection like lovely.*, zc.*, etc..  There are currently several z3c
>> packages in existence.
>> The packages currently use the package name "zorg".  I
>> personally (and at least a couple other people feel the same way) like
>> zorg better than z3c.  I'd like to propose that zorg become the name
>> space package for otherwise homeless modules/packages.
>> (In fairness, I'll note that Stephan likes z3c better, and that name is
>> already in semi-wide-spread use).
> Right, thus I am clearly -1. :-) (Wow, now I do not even have to argue myself 
> anymore. ;-)
> Note that we spent a lot of time coming up with this name and pretty much all 
> the contributors to the namespace were involved in the discussion. Also, z3c 
> does not try to be the holy grail of community work. It is just another 
> namespace and I think this should be accepted. Zope Corp decided to use "zc", 
> Lovely Systems "lovely" and a bunch of us not representing a company decided 
> to use "z3c". So what's wrong with that? Should I create a foundation called 
> Z3C to have the right get this namespace? Other people can feel free to work 
> on another namespace. (BTW, I would without a thought change the working in 
> the ZSCP document to be less asserting and globalizing.)
> I wonder how Zope Corp. would feel if I would ask them to use zcorp, because 
> "zc" stands for Zope Community?
> BTW, I am not aggravated about the mail; I am just very tired of those 
> pointless namespace discussions.

Yeah, I see your point. We can't make you choose a particular namespace.
But it's always good to set good examples. I think Benji and I are not
the only ones to find that z3c is disturbing to read next to zc, for

One thing you have to acknowledge is that is community
territory. It's not just a playground. I think we eventually want to
enforce *some* rules (e.g. adding stuff to the 'zope' namespace might
need blessing, etc.). One thing that I'm definitely disappointed of is
that some z3c packages just ignore's common repository
layout (sandbox vs. trunk). I've mentioned that before, but nobody who's
active in z3c responded nor did anything.

Zope3-users mailing list

Reply via email to