Hi! Wow, this is the first time I have more zope-dev mails in my inbox than from the "main" list (and I'm very happy that all this stays on one list). What I have seen from ZC up til now seems like they disclose practically everything but their client base, ok and maybe plans for a commercial Zope product (I count two now that have been dropped, this does not include Zope itself). Efforts have been made to separate the "geeks" from the "tie-fighters" (.org/.com), but I can't see any negative side-effects for the development of Zope itself. Maybe "not yet", but, and this goes out to Mr O'Brien: It needs two to tango. Fair enough. ZC knows that, and especially Paul Everitt has pointed out more than once the dedication that ZC has towards "the community". I want to thank Zope Corporation for everything that's been done up til now. This is the kind of track I will stay on. I see this working. Whatever parts of Zope don't work as expected, I don't know in how far I could ever put blame about that on ZC. These guys are more open to new ideas, efforts from the community and mutual benefits than anyone else I have met (in my short life, ok granted). Akm's worries and complaints are legitimate (and he has already corrected his language), and I see people reacting _immediately_. What more can you expect? In my opinion it was just a contretemps that priorities in the User API were set differently than expected from someone who dedicates a hell of a lot of time to that field of development. My personal opinion is that ZC should give akm a CVS account and let him put some elaborate changes to the user api for 2.5, apparently he knows exactly what he's doing. "Dude": Do it better and _then_ complain. ZC's not yo mama, feeding you software with a spoon. It looks like you're spilling it all, anyway. Take a look at the ZPL, take a look at the Public CVS, the Wikis, the fishbowls, the open-sourced literature, and then think again. "Closure of code / internals" is not an arguable point when it comes to Zope, that's just being paranoid. You are welcome to take from the community, you are welcome to contribute to the community, you are welcome to make money with Zope. It's all there. Closure of code is not what will separate the wheat from the chaff, business-wise. Couldn't-resisting-ly yours, Danny
It's ambitious as it is sensible -- to have Zope use expand tenfold. But a 10x zope base needs to be clearly defined. It impacts on markets, architecture and community. Talk about moving from a cathedral to a bazaar is confusing (despite Raymond pitching it). A Tenfold (10x) expansion can happen in three distinct ways - via quantity (10x more downloads & deployments), via architecture (10x more functions), or via commitment (10x more active in community). The trick is to set in place initiatives that harmonize and reinforce these three directions. Zope is too big and complex to be sold by advertising (even informal) alone. Ease-of-use is the critical success factor here. Relevance to specific application domains is another. The CMF (and skins), Zope Page Templates, and an eventual 'zope-in-a-box' will drive the download/deployment rate. A tenfold increase is also possible if all the zope instances currently operating expanded in functionality. Imagine a world with 4000, rather 400 Zope products. Here the critical success factor is a Zope Product Manager. Secondarily, there is a pressing need for a better taxonomy of products. Currently the taxonomy used at Zope.org is refers to Zope rather more than its applications. A third dimension is one wherein the interaction between zope services and components was 10 times better. Here is the land of 'new religion', components and frameworks, of Transwarp etc. The sooner components and generic services arrive the better. So far, so obvious. The difficulty lies in not pushing on one of these dimensions and thus undermines another. For instance, a zope-in-a-box can undermine 'commitment' (and community numbers) by expanding the user base and yet contracting the questions they pose. Similarly, more components need to be prioritised to extend functionality (and thus breed more community) rather than re-factor what is already there (and provoke arcane debates on the list about architectural issues that are beyond most of the community). To get the balance, more opinion needs harvesting from the mass of people that *use* Zope to solve specific problems. I, for one, have been working on finding application domains that enable 'mega-products' to be built: ZAPPP - Zope Activated Participative Planning Platform, that enables local government planning regulations to be transparently changed and kept consistent with state-wide planning imperatives, ZELBA - Zope Enabled Location Based Assistance - that enables local communities to mobilise tiny fractions of 'spare time' (of locals) to massively increase the opportunities for volunteer responses, or ZEAR - Zope Enabled Authoring of Research - templated systems for students to write and publish 'articles' while learning research skills. ZOCCO - Zope Orchestrated Client-Centered Offices - by which dispersed care professionals can operate bookings, follow-ups and counselling work in the 'human services' sector. etc etc These kinds of possibilities still use the web - but they are some distance from simply 'dynamic web publishing'. I expect a 10x growth surge will move down these application 'furrows' as much as the wide plains of web-serving. This much is clear: it isn't a matter of cathedral vs bazaar, it is a matter of having *both* - suitably located around a piazza of application discussion. So we need: A) Zope_Series-in-a-box (focussed on application domains and easy to deploy for that reason) B) Zope Product Manager with the options to focus products around 'mega-product' lines (again that's easier) C) A component architecture wherein generic services can be marshaled to meet specific domains of challenges that relate to some real problem in the world The main missing piece here is a dedicated zope list about 'applications' (under which all kinds of "Zapplications" might be discussed thus giving direction to developers and users alike). Oopps, this has got 10x bigger than I had expected. Hope length of argument is matched by breadth of relevance and height of possibilities :) Richard Volpato
I am hearing to different stories, sometimes from the same people. On the one hand ZC is this munificent benefactor of Zope. On the other hand ZC is this poor cash strapped little company that can't afford to take any interest in Zope unless they have an immediate incentive. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS DUDE. I AM SORRY BUT THIS IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE. If ZC is the benefactor of zope, why can't they develop a plan that is independent of day to day money making? If ZC is this little company that does not have the resources to provide true leadership, then why does Zope need them? Clark PS I personally don't think ANY open source project needs a corporate sponsor- much less Zope. But to those who do- and sadly there seem to be many of them on this list- I would say that these obsequious expressions of thanks and gratitude to ZC are uncalled for. I believe Zope would not have trouble finding corporate sponsors even from fortune 500 companies like IBM or HP. But why anyone would want corporate "Mothering" is beyond me though. --- Danny William Adair <danny@adair.net> wrote:
Hi!
Wow, this is the first time I have more zope-dev mails in my inbox than from the "main" list (and I'm very happy that all this stays on one list).
What I have seen from ZC up til now seems like they disclose practically everything but their client base, ok and maybe plans for a commercial Zope product (I count two now that have been dropped, this does not include Zope itself). Efforts have been made to separate the "geeks" from the "tie-fighters" (.org/.com), but I can't see any negative side-effects for the development of Zope itself. Maybe "not yet", but, and this goes out to Mr O'Brien: It needs two to tango. Fair enough. ZC knows that, and especially Paul Everitt has pointed out more than once the dedication that ZC has towards "the community".
I want to thank Zope Corporation for everything that's been done up til now. This is the kind of track I will stay on. I see this working.
Whatever parts of Zope don't work as expected, I don't know in how far I could ever put blame about that on ZC. These guys are more open to new ideas, efforts from the community and mutual benefits than anyone else I have met (in my short life, ok granted). Akm's worries and complaints are legitimate (and he has already corrected his language), and I see people reacting _immediately_. What more can you expect? In my opinion it was just a contretemps that priorities in the User API were set differently than expected from someone who dedicates a hell of a lot of time to that field of development. My personal opinion is that ZC should give akm a CVS account and let him put some elaborate changes to the user api for 2.5, apparently he knows exactly what he's doing.
"Dude": Do it better and _then_ complain. ZC's not yo mama, feeding you software with a spoon. It looks like you're spilling it all, anyway.
Take a look at the ZPL, take a look at the Public CVS, the Wikis, the fishbowls, the open-sourced literature, and then think again. "Closure of code / internals" is not an arguable point when it comes to Zope, that's just being paranoid.
You are welcome to take from the community, you are welcome to contribute to the community, you are welcome to make money with Zope. It's all there. Closure of code is not what will separate the wheat from the chaff, business-wise.
Couldn't-resisting-ly yours, Danny
_______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists -
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping. http://shopping.yahoo.com
Clark O'Brien wrote:
I am hearing to different stories, sometimes from the same people.
You obviously care enough about Zope that you continue taking the time to post to this mailing list. Why do you care? What do you want from Zope? (software, community, corporation; you choose) -- Steve Alexander
From: "Clark O'Brien" <clark_obrien@yahoo.com>
If ZC is the benefactor of zope, why can't they develop a plan that is independent of day to day money making?
If ZC is this little company that does not have the resources to provide true leadership, then why does Zope need them?
What would Linux be without Linus Thorvalds? If you take the Linux core and start modifying it without Linus backing you up, and finally end up with a product not compatible with the Linus approved Linux, what would the result be? Does Linux need Linus? Yes. Is Linus a big company that is pumping loads of money into Linux development? No. The same can be said of Zope.
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 12:28:25AM +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:
Does Linux need Linus? Yes.
Linus disagrees with you. From http://kerneltrap.org/article.php?sid=398 I wish more people realized it. Some people realize it only when they get really pissed off at me and say "Go screw yourself, I can do this on my own". And you know what? They are right too, even if they come to that conclusion for what I consider the wrong reasons. --amk
From: <akuchlin@mems-exchange.org>
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 12:28:25AM +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:
Does Linux need Linus? Yes.
Linus disagrees with you. From http://kerneltrap.org/article.php?sid=398
He is wrong.
Hello Clark, I see your point here, and I understand your problem. But I do not share your opinion, especially when it comes to its conclusion. (branching) Zope Corp. is not living in a dream world:
On the one hand ZC is this munificent benefactor of Zope.
On the other hand ZC is this poor cash strapped little company that can't afford to take any interest in Zope unless they have an immediate incentive.
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS DUDE. I AM SORRY BUT THIS IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE.
I have zope.org, and I have zope.com It's the same company, isn't it? It's the same people on the same payroll, isn't it? If I go to zope.com, I know I will definitely spend money, probably a lot of money. If I go to zope.org, I know I'm not going to spend a single dime. Guess where you'll find me? Now guess where'll find others. This separation makes sense, and imho it should have been done earlier! Now that it's late, Zope Corp has to work on its image, which would have been easier a year ago. (I think the new CEO's "first approach" towards the developers community was pretty "unfruitful". Should I put a smiley here? Naaaa... He has learned quickly, I even forgot his name (whoops, who said that?)) I don't think ZC is a poor cash strapped little company, though it is still quite small. But in fact, this is totally irrelevant: No investor (see last line of this mail) will throw money out the window, whether it's a lot or a little. He wants it back x20, better in 2 or 3 three years than in 5 or 6. And I don't see why Zope Corp should pay "high-end" full-time developers to "keep the fraggles entertained" (yeah I'm one of the fraggles, sometimes). I do appreciate that they snip off some of their weekly time, and support the community(which has helped Zope Corp a lot in the past imho). I can not and will not pay them for this and only this, and I don't see how you get the idea that ZC can.
If ZC is the benefactor of zope, why can't they develop a plan that is independent of day to day money making?
Open-Sourcing was a nice move, since (among a lot of other things) it opens up business opportunities for other people. Still, it costs a lot of money to maintain an Open-Source project of this size. Zope is the BASIS of ZC's consulting and services work, so how could you possibly make this independent from each other? You can listen to Paul Everitts thoughts on this if you take a look at the interview he had with O'Reilly Network (quite a while ago). Or maybe just wait a moment...
If ZC is this little company that does not have the resources to provide true leadership, then why does Zope need them?
I see true leadership, but I also see _mutual_ benefits. I also believe that Zope would have never come that far if DC/ZC hadn't backed it. What it seems to me that you are trying to do here is take something away you never been responsible of in the first place. If there was no ZC/DC, there wouldn't have been a Zope, and this is the truth that you deny. I respect ZC for the responsibility they are taking more than I envy anyone of copyrights. The ZPL has all you can ask for. Set up a website and promote it as the "alternative" development site for Zope and upcoming versions of Zope. Good luck! With "after hour" developers alone you will wallow in it for years. How many people would feel attracted, which people, and why? What would developers get on this site? What would be the "added value" of the site? Copies of documents that people have written that had been paid by a company (ZC)? And who will oversee the development cycle as a whole? Me? You? When? After "work"? So if you take the whole day for this, who's gonna pay for your costs of living? Oh, an investor. What should he invest in? Why? How do you plan to get his money back (x20)? Ohhhhhh..... You want to do this WHILE you're at the other job.... :-) ZC is a company "dude", and a company has a business plan. That plan either fits yours or it doesn't. Of course they're not playing with marbles. ZOPE.ORG IS NOT ZC'S "HOBBY" (but it looks like it's yours) Customer to development company: - "So what's the technical platform for this project?" - "Zope" - "Zope, uhu... Whose Software is that? Will this thing exist as long as our project exists? Where will we get support?" - Ah well... The Software belongs to "zope.org", actually no one specific. It's open source, developed and maintained by people who find it a "nice" piece of software, and work on it after finishing their real job during the day. Support? Well there are a couple of email addresses on that site, I think they answer pretty quickly... Uh-huh.. Duuhhh... I support ZC's approach. Most def. btw, Check the "corporate guide for business decisions" (or something like that) on zope.org to see some of the benefits we as developers have from a corporate approach.
...
Zope would not have trouble finding corporate sponsors even from fortune 500 companies like IBM or HP.
You know about the recent investment that has been made, don't you? Yours, Danny P.S.: Sorry for the bad structure. I was adding and adding, and I'm not very satisfied with the current form. Will send it now anyway, cos: I gotta go to work. Using Zope of course.
Just as a last comment- and this is getting tiresome even for me. My favorite freeware project is JBoss www.jboss.org. They built a really excellent J2EE server without any corporate funding. The JBoss developers manage the training and support for JBoss themselves, and use the revenue it generates to fund their development efforts. You are falling into trap that developers fall into so easily- letting some guys with MBA's step between them and the customer and then being grateful to these guys for a pittance of support or salary. In my opinion all the revenue generated from Zope should go to you guys to fund more great projects. Anyone got a problem with that? Check out how the guys at JBoss do things- one last time- Dudes. --- Danny William Adair <danny@adair.net> wrote:
Hello Clark,
I see your point here, and I understand your problem. But I do not share your opinion, especially when it comes to its conclusion. (branching)
Zope Corp. is not living in a dream world:
On the one hand ZC is this munificent benefactor of Zope.
On the other hand ZC is this poor cash strapped little company that can't afford to take any interest in Zope unless they have an immediate incentive.
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS DUDE. I AM SORRY BUT THIS IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE.
I have zope.org, and I have zope.com It's the same company, isn't it? It's the same people on the same payroll, isn't it?
If I go to zope.com, I know I will definitely spend money, probably a lot of money. If I go to zope.org, I know I'm not going to spend a single dime. Guess where you'll find me? Now guess where'll find others. This separation makes sense, and imho it should have been done earlier! Now that it's late, Zope Corp has to work on its image, which would have been easier a year ago. (I think the new CEO's "first approach" towards the developers community was pretty "unfruitful". Should I put a smiley here? Naaaa... He has learned quickly, I even forgot his name (whoops, who said that?))
I don't think ZC is a poor cash strapped little company, though it is still quite small. But in fact, this is totally irrelevant: No investor (see last line of this mail) will throw money out the window, whether it's a lot or a little. He wants it back x20, better in 2 or 3 three years than in 5 or 6. And I don't see why Zope Corp should pay "high-end" full-time developers to "keep the fraggles entertained" (yeah I'm one of the fraggles, sometimes). I do appreciate that they snip off some of their weekly time, and support the community(which has helped Zope Corp a lot in the past imho). I can not and will not pay them for this and only this, and I don't see how you get the idea that ZC can.
If ZC is the benefactor of zope, why can't they develop a plan that is independent of day to day
money
making?
Open-Sourcing was a nice move, since (among a lot of other things) it opens up business opportunities for other people. Still, it costs a lot of money to maintain an Open-Source project of this size.
Zope is the BASIS of ZC's consulting and services work, so how could you possibly make this independent from each other?
You can listen to Paul Everitts thoughts on this if you take a look at the interview he had with O'Reilly Network (quite a while ago). Or maybe just wait a moment...
If ZC is this little company that does not have
the
resources to provide true leadership, then why does Zope need them?
I see true leadership, but I also see _mutual_ benefits. I also believe that Zope would have never come that far if DC/ZC hadn't backed it. What it seems to me that you are trying to do here is take something away you never been responsible of in the first place. If there was no ZC/DC, there wouldn't have been a Zope, and this is the truth that you deny.
I respect ZC for the responsibility they are taking more than I envy anyone of copyrights. The ZPL has all you can ask for.
Set up a website and promote it as the "alternative" development site for Zope and upcoming versions of Zope. Good luck! With "after hour" developers alone you will wallow in it for years. How many people would feel attracted, which people, and why? What would developers get on this site? What would be the "added value" of the site? Copies of documents that people have written that had been paid by a company (ZC)?
And who will oversee the development cycle as a whole? Me? You? When? After "work"? So if you take the whole day for this, who's gonna pay for your costs of living? Oh, an investor. What should he invest in? Why? How do you plan to get his money back (x20)? Ohhhhhh..... You want to do this WHILE you're at the other job.... :-)
ZC is a company "dude", and a company has a business plan. That plan either fits yours or it doesn't. Of course they're not playing with marbles.
ZOPE.ORG IS NOT ZC'S "HOBBY" (but it looks like it's yours)
Customer to development company: - "So what's the technical platform for this project?" - "Zope" - "Zope, uhu... Whose Software is that? Will this thing exist as long as our project exists? Where will we get support?" - Ah well... The Software belongs to "zope.org", actually no one specific. It's open source, developed and maintained by people who find it a "nice" piece of software, and work on it after finishing their real job during the day. Support? Well there are a couple of email addresses on that site, I think they answer pretty quickly... Uh-huh..
Duuhhh...
I support ZC's approach. Most def.
btw, Check the "corporate guide for business decisions" (or something like that) on zope.org to see some of the benefits we as developers have from a corporate approach.
...
Zope would not have trouble finding corporate sponsors even from fortune 500 companies like IBM or HP.
You know about the recent investment that has been made, don't you?
Yours, Danny
P.S.: Sorry for the bad structure. I was adding and adding, and I'm not very satisfied with the current form. Will send it now anyway, cos: I gotta go to work. Using Zope of course.
_______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists -
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping. http://shopping.yahoo.com
From: "Clark O'Brien" <clark_obrien@yahoo.com>
In my opinion all the revenue generated from Zope should go to you guys to fund more great projects.
It already does. You see, Zope if free. It doesn't generate any revenue. Maybe you missed that.
Anyone got a problem with that?
Not at all. In a way I guess you could say Zope generates revenue. The projects I'm currently getting payed for wouldn't have happened without Zope. And if we get any money left over from that, we will use that to fund more great projects, as I'm sure most other Zope developers would.
participants (7)
-
akuchlin＠mems-exchange.org -
Chris Withers -
Clark O'Brien -
Danny William Adair -
Lennart Regebro -
Richard Volpato -
Steve Alexander