Sorry for the huge quoting and "me too". The intent of this reply is to say I agree with Shalabh and forward the discussion to the Zope-dev list, since it resulted in absolute silence in the PTK list (and after all, this isn't about the PTK anymore, but Zope in general and the site in particular). On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 04:41:13PM +0530, Shalabh Chaturvedi wrote:
Paul Everitt wrote:
A couple of comments..
Could someone take some time to summarize this discussion in the Wiki setup in the PTK area:
http://www.zope.org/Products/PTK/ (can't remember the URL for the Wiki)
I've wanted the PTK (and Zope Mozilla) to be a joint development effort with the community. So far one entity has stepped forward and gotten CVS access, thought there hasn't been much activity.
Digital Creations needs to find the right rhythym to a more open development cycle. At this point, I'm not sure if the lack of participation is due to lack of engagement on our part or the community's part.
My $0.02 on this:
I don't think DC lacks in spirit but I feel that some systems are not in place to involve and encourage possible participants. This has mostly to do with the publicly available website and resources.
For comparison here is a list of 'good' os projects, some big, some small: http://www.mozilla.org/ http://www.gnome.org or rather http://developer.gnome.org/ http://java.apache.org/ http://www.enhydra.org/ http://www.jabber.org/
1. The ubiquitous 'Get Involved' link and associated details are missing from both the PTK and ZopeMoz projects. Anyone browsing doesn't know how (or even whether) he can contribute.
2. Visible Activity: Almost all sites above have 'status', 'news' etc inline right on the front page. They _look_ alive.
3. Developer Resources: Documentation (is being worked on, I believe), External links, Access to Issues (mentioned by Andrew in his reply), Feature lists and so on are all loved by developers.
4. Identity: Currently both the said projects would appear to be some sort of extension to Zope, or _sub_projects. This is not very encouraging for external developers (who are not yet or only recently a part of the Zope community) since they see that value of the work they might do will be lost in this huge thing. The people within the community and capable of contributing are either already in DC or doing so for core Zope. This makes pulling people from outside more important (and beneficial) than distributing the existing Zope developers.
For ZopeMoz: IMO, people with Mozilla knowledge can contribute more than people with Zope Zen (with the same effort). Since they would come from outside Zope, the above points become more weighty.
<aol> me too. I mean, I agree. </aol> []s, |alo +---- -- Hack and Roll ( http://www.hackandroll.org ) News for, uh, whatever it is that we are. http://www.webcom.com/lalo mailto:lalo@hackandroll.org pgp key in the personal page Brazil of Darkness (RPG) --- http://zope.gf.com.br/BroDar
Well, my $0.02 on this as on everything else. For starters, I'd fully agree with this :-) I'd also drag the ZDP into this in a more prominent way. This project has enormous potential but seems very distanced from zope.org. What you need to do is replace the documentation section on zope.org with the current version all of the ZDP projects with guides as to what to use and when (if you're new, try this... if you're a developer, read this...) I see this as doing two things: 1. It'll provide users of Zope with more up-to-date and hopefully more user-friendly documentation. ZCMG and the DTML reference are useful, but out of date, with no signs of being updated. 2. It'll make ZDP work harder and get more accurate, more quickly. The major problem with the ZDP is that there's no pressure on it. I'm sure they want to get it done, but if no one is using their results (and I'd guess there's only a fraction of people using it who should be...) then there's no motivation to get it done fast, or for people liek me to get involved and document what we know, and them problems we found. Also, zdp.org should be a site for developing the documentation. The documentation section of zope.org should show only the results of this and should be wholey focused around using the documentation. This especially means building a decent navigation interface for ZBook, as well as providing PDFs or PostScript files to download and print out, for use on zope.org Okay, so I think that turned into more of a dollar. Feel free to flame me to hell and back if I've got something wrong ;-) Chris Lalo Martins wrote:
Sorry for the huge quoting and "me too". The intent of this reply is to say I agree with Shalabh and forward the discussion to the Zope-dev list, since it resulted in absolute silence in the PTK list (and after all, this isn't about the PTK anymore, but Zope in general and the site in particular).
participants (2)
-
Chris Withers -
Lalo Martins