On 4/20/09 3:35 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Sunday 19 April 2009, Tres Seaver wrote:
-1. As a branding choice (as opposed to a technology), "Zope 3" *is* a dead-end: it implies a strategy (replacing Zope 2) which we no longer believe in. I think the consequences of the brand confusion are hard for those uf us "inside" to estimate, but they are far from trivial. I never communicated to anyone that I believe that Zope 3 is a successor of Zope 2. Other people pushed that message.
That message has been out there from the start, no matter how it arose. One way this conclusion was reached was the obvious 3 versus 2. We need to fix that situation.
I think Martijn's right on this point. FWIW, there was a mailing list setup to discuss this when it came up in Jan 2003: http://archives.free.net.ph/mindex/zope2-migration@20021201.050000.00000000.... Here's a useful thread showing a dialog between Seb Bacon, Jim, and me: http://archives.free.net.ph/message/20030214.073424.f58e0929.en.html We have arrived at a different result, of course, but it is still useful to agree on the background. We also had the discussion when the decision was made to drop the X in Zope 3X, without fulfilling one part of the bullet points for why there was an X. Stephan, I agree that you didn't communicate that message. But I think it is pretty easy to show that Zope communicated that message, officially and unofficially. --Paul