On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 15:02, Jonathan (dev101) <dev101@magma.ca> wrote:
How about starting with "Zope 3 Toolkit" and then moving to "Zope Toolkit" after a year or so.
It's quite clear that nobody outside the community knows what Zope 3 is, and withing the community everybody disagrees on what Zope 3 is. The Zope Toolkit is not Zope 3. I do not see any purpose in blurring the lines between the Zope Toolkit and Zope 3, as that will only mean that nobody will know what the Zope Toolkit is either. That is not helpful.
- there would be no sudden disappearance of "Zope 3", eliminating the idea that the "Zope 3" concept is an evolutionary dead-end
The only sudden disappearance of Zope 3 will be if nobody maintains it. By now it's clear that it will be maintained, hence it will not suddenly disappear. This is therefore a non-issue.
- it would use the "Zope 3" brand to introduce the concept of the "Toolkit"
Zope 3 is an unbrand. It would not introduce it, it would scare people away.
This approach is used in the retail industry whenever a brand is being repositioned and the brand owner wants to move as many "customers" as possible to the new brand.
Zope Toolkit is not a rebranding of Zope 3.
It retains the value/goodwill associated with the old brand while building value/goodwill for the new brand.
This assumes there is goodwill to move over. I'm getting really tired of this discussion, and also that nobody comment either positively or negatively on what I write, but just seems to ignore it, which is frustrating, as it makes me think I'm completely right but nobody gets it. ;-) I therefore will go with Martijns suggestion of letting the issue rest for a couple of months. I will then buy him and the rest of the Foundation Board drinks until they do what I say and make a pronunciation on the naming issue according to my suggestions. :-D -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64