Eric Barroca wrote:
Hello,
Following the announces from Zope Corporation yesterday about their willingness to create a Zope Foundation (that would manage independently Zope 2 and Zope 3 projects) and to participate actively in the Z3ECM project, I would like to express briefly Nuxeo's position about all the news.
First, we would like to thank Zope Corporation for Zope 2 and Zope 3 as Open Source software, they are amazing products !
For us as far as we know, the Zope Foundation is a really great news. This will probably solve the main issues we heard from people in the community and from some customers (brand and copyright security). It's really great news that Zope Corporation is now ready to go further on the community way and involvement. We are ready to help as much as needed in establishing the ZF as a vendor-neutral organisation with the mission to develop and promote a great technology (like the Apache or Eclipse Foundations). The Zope Foundation will, IOHO, a big step towards "project 10X" to establish Zope as a leading development platform for all kinds of web and internet applications.
On the Z3ECM project, we are very glad that Zope Corporation wants to actively join the project ! We are certain that having ZC resources on this project will clearly help to build better products and solidify the platform.
We will also support the move of the Z3ECM project to the ZF when the issues of copyright ownership will be discussed with the project stakeholders. It could definitely help unifying CMS zope community and will give more credibility to the platform from a customer point of view.
We will also support the move of the Z3ECM project to the ZF when the issues of copyright ownership will be discussed with the project stakeholders
In short, we are really happy and excited, and will definitely supports ZC to move forward on these topics with the other members of the Zope community.
I'm pretty confident that the whole community will support this as well.
Best regards,
EB.
-- Éric Barroca, Tel: +33 6 21 74 77 64 (mobile). Nuxeo Collaborative Portal Server: http://www.nuxeo.com/cps Gestion de contenu web / portail collaboratif / groupware / open source! www.nuxeo.com - www.cps-project.org - www.indesko.com
Hi!
This is really great news!
I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key players in the foundation which would make the foundation even more vendor-neutral. I am confident that this will go through.
regards /JM
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
This is really great news!
I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key players in the foundation which would make the foundation even more vendor-neutral. I am confident that this will go through.
This almost sounds as if the Foundation isn't to be vendor-neutral from the start which is certainly not the intention of a foundation. What I like about other open source foundations (take the Plone Foundation from our community, for example) is that the members are developers, not companies. The developers govern themselves, every developer gets a vote.
Philipp
--On 17. Juni 2005 13:04:17 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen philipp@weitershausen.de wrote:
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
This is really great news!
I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key players in the foundation which would make the foundation even more vendor-neutral. I am confident that this will go through.
This almost sounds as if the Foundation isn't to be vendor-neutral from the start which is certainly not the intention of a foundation. What I like about other open source foundations (take the Plone Foundation from our community, for example) is that the members are developers, not companies. The developers govern themselves, every developer gets a vote.
I strongly second that. A company driven or ruled foundation is likely not very much acceptable for the Zope community.
-aj
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 17. Juni 2005 13:04:17 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen philipp@weitershausen.de wrote:
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
This is really great news!
I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key players in the foundation which would make the foundation even more vendor-neutral. I am confident that this will go through.
This almost sounds as if the Foundation isn't to be vendor-neutral from the start which is certainly not the intention of a foundation. What I like about other open source foundations (take the Plone Foundation from our community, for example) is that the members are developers, not companies. The developers govern themselves, every developer gets a vote.
I strongly second that. A company driven or ruled foundation is likely not very much acceptable for the Zope community.
Yes.
I wonder, given their experience in bootstrapping a foundation (with all the legal complications etc.), has the Plone Foundation been solicited for helpful input? Wouldn't make much sense for us to go through the same difficult steps if there's someone within our community who has done it already...
Philipp
--On 17. Juni 2005 13:29:33 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen philipp@weitershausen.de wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 17. Juni 2005 13:04:17 +0200 Philipp von Weitershausen philipp@weitershausen.de wrote:
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
This is really great news!
I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key players in the foundation which would make the foundation even more vendor-neutral. I am confident that this will go through.
This almost sounds as if the Foundation isn't to be vendor-neutral from the start which is certainly not the intention of a foundation. What I like about other open source foundations (take the Plone Foundation from our community, for example) is that the members are developers, not companies. The developers govern themselves, every developer gets a vote.
I strongly second that. A company driven or ruled foundation is likely not very much acceptable for the Zope community.
Yes.
I wonder, given their experience in bootstrapping a foundation (with all the legal complications etc.), has the Plone Foundation been solicited for helpful input? Wouldn't make much sense for us to go through the same difficult steps if there's someone within our community who has done it already...
Maybe we should stop discusing these issues and wait until we hear some more solid information from ZC about their ZF plans. The ZF is a good idea but don't let us kill it in the beginning ...
-aj
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
This is really great news!
I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key players in the foundation which would make the foundation even more vendor-neutral. I am confident that this will go through.
This almost sounds as if the Foundation isn't to be vendor-neutral from the start which is certainly not the intention of a foundation. What I like about other open source foundations (take the Plone Foundation from our community, for example) is that the members are developers, not companies. The developers govern themselves, every developer gets a vote.
Philipp
Hi!
I'm a bit confused, first of all Chalmers is a university, it is not a software vendor.
Then when I look at the members of the Plone foundation ( http://plone.org/foundation/about/board/list ) I only see companies, except that ZC is not represented. So even if every member gets a vote, how much does that vote count in the development process of Zope2, CMF and Zope3 ?
regards /JM
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
This is really great news!
I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key players in the foundation which would make the foundation even more vendor-neutral. I am confident that this will go through.
This almost sounds as if the Foundation isn't to be vendor-neutral from the start which is certainly not the intention of a foundation. What I like about other open source foundations (take the Plone Foundation from our community, for example) is that the members are developers, not companies. The developers govern themselves, every developer gets a vote.
Philipp
Hi!
I'm a bit confused, first of all Chalmers is a university, it is not a software vendor.
I guess you're right. But then I don't understand how Chalmers as a "key player" would make the Foundation more neural with respect to software vendors, as you say above.
Then when I look at the members of the Plone foundation ( http://plone.org/foundation/about/board/list ) I only see companies,
I see *people*. If I remember correctly, the Plone Foundation even specifically says no to companies, just like the ASF. Of course, that doesn't mean that officers of the board in the foundation can't be employed somewhere...
Btw, you're looking at the board. But still, they're just people, not companies. http://plone.org/foundation/members has the actual members list. These are the people that get to vote. As you can see, I'm in this list and I don't belong to any company. If this was company driven, I wouldn't have a vote.
except that ZC is not represented. So even if every member gets a vote, how much does that vote count in the development process of Zope2, CMF and Zope3 ?
Well, it counts. How much does a vote count when you vote for your parliament? Little. But it counts.
Philipp
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
This is really great news!
I am going to start working at getting Chalmers to be one of the key players in the foundation which would make the foundation even more vendor-neutral. I am confident that this will go through.
This almost sounds as if the Foundation isn't to be vendor-neutral from the start which is certainly not the intention of a foundation. What I like about other open source foundations (take the Plone Foundation from our community, for example) is that the members are developers, not companies. The developers govern themselves, every developer gets a vote.
Philipp
Hi!
I'm a bit confused, first of all Chalmers is a university, it is not a software vendor.
Hi!
I guess you're right. But then I don't understand how Chalmers as a "key player" would make the Foundation more neural with respect to software vendors, as you say above.
I don't know but how do you make something less "vendor" oriented? That would require a definition, but essentially you'd bring in non-vendors (such as academic or non-profit organisations) to provide with some sort of balance, instead of hiding companies between individuals' names. How could it be done otherwise?
The code that I'm writing during working hours is (c) Copyright Chalmers - it can't be otherwise, but it does not mean that I as a developer have less decision power than the company that I'm working for.
Then when I look at the members of the Plone foundation ( http://plone.org/foundation/about/board/list ) I only see companies,
I see *people*. If I remember correctly, the Plone Foundation even specifically says no to companies, just like the ASF. Of course, that doesn't mean that officers of the board in the foundation can't be employed somewhere...
Btw, you're looking at the board. But still, they're just people, not companies. http://plone.org/foundation/members has the actual members list. These are the people that get to vote. As you can see, I'm in this list and I don't belong to any company. If this was company driven, I wouldn't have a vote.
ah OK. I didn't see that list.
However, most members do not write code during their free time, do they? What happens when the members write code under working hours, their respective employers must well have something to say about it?
except that ZC is not represented. So even if every member gets a vote, how much does that vote count in the development process of Zope2, CMF and Zope3 ?
Well, it counts. How much does a vote count when you vote for your parliament? Little. But it counts.
Philipp
I meant to say that the framework underneath (Zope, CMF) is such an essential component that the development of Plone cannot be dissociated from the development of CMF or Zope, which today happens to be managed outside the Plone foundation.
But in the situation where ZC is involved in the foundation as one of the player, obviously the development of the framework and of core components managed by the members of the foundation is less concentrated on one single vendor since others partners have their word to say. This is a give-and-take situation.
regards /JM
On Jun 17, 2005, at 1:49 PM, Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
However, most members do not write code during their free time, do they? What happens when the members write code under working hours, their respective employers must well have something to say about it?
The PF actually did research on this and got legal help from Eben Moglen and the Software Freedom Law Center. Answer is: almost the same way as Apache does it and the FSF does it. The employer signs a contribution agreement *but* is not a voting member of the foundation.
--Paul
On Friday 17 June 2005 07:16, Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
Then when I look at the members of the Plone foundation ( http://plone.org/foundation/about/board/list ) I only see companies, except that ZC is not represented. So even if every member gets a vote, how much does that vote count in the development process of Zope2, CMF and Zope3 ?
Ugh, I hope I misread this. If the foundation or any other instituation ever influences the Zope 3 development process, I will not contribute any more. I rather have ZC-centric development platform and the freedom to choose what to do for a release (in agreement with the other Z3-core developers) than a vender-independent foundation with a foundation-driven development cycle.
Also, I agree with Andreas and Philipp that developers should be members, not companies. Otherwise, how could I, as an independent developer, have a say? BTW, this is also positive for companies, since they can have several developers being members. In the proposed scenario, my one-man shop would have a lot of power compared to larger companies, such as ZC, Nuxeo, etc.
Regards, Stephan
On Jun 17, 2005, at 1:52 PM, Stephan Richter wrote:
On Friday 17 June 2005 07:16, Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
Then when I look at the members of the Plone foundation ( http://plone.org/foundation/about/board/list ) I only see companies, except that ZC is not represented. So even if every member gets a vote, how much does that vote count in the development process of Zope2, CMF and Zope3 ?
Ugh, I hope I misread this. If the foundation or any other instituation ever influences the Zope 3 development process, I will not contribute any more. I rather have ZC-centric development platform and the freedom to choose what to do for a release (in agreement with the other Z3-core developers) than a vender-independent foundation with a foundation-driven development cycle.
In the case of the Plone Foundation, the PF is specifically excluded from the development process of the community. Its mandate is limited to organizational issues.
Other foundations approach things a bit differently. (I did quite a bit of research on this for the Plone Foundation.)
Also, I agree with Andreas and Philipp that developers should be members, not companies. Otherwise, how could I, as an independent developer, have a say? BTW, this is also positive for companies, since they can have several developers being members. In the proposed scenario, my one-man shop would have a lot of power compared to larger companies, such as ZC, Nuxeo, etc.
Correct. The essential ingredient, and hardest one for the different cultures of different communities, is to establish the definition of merit. Is it only code? If so, how much and what kind? If not, what else is valuable?
Most of the successful communities have a (subjective) definition of merit, used to evaluate membership.
--Paul
Paul Everitt wrote:
Other foundations approach things a bit differently. (I did quite a bit of research on this for the Plone Foundation.)
Eric has done some research recently on the different successful Open Source / Free Software foundations out there that have the mission to develop and promote great software.
We're looking for a model that is just as acceptable for the single developers (who are a very key elements in the community, and provide some of the best work around - see Stefan or Philip for instance, but there are many others whitout whom Zope and specially Zope3 would not exist as we know them today) but also for the companies and organisations that depend on Zope for their business and are willing to commit ressources to the development of the software (this includes software development houses like Zope Corp, Infrae, Nuxeo and 10s of others, but also companies or universities or non-profit that depend on Zope for their ongoing operation - like Chalmers university or like the SD houses customers).
IMHO, "vendor-neutral" means, in this context, that the Foundation must take into account the interests of all the stakeholders (individual hackers, vendors, customers), and shouldn't be interpreted as "vendor-free".
The governance model should take that into account, and not limit itself to "only individuals are members" (of course, companies are represented by individuals, but what happens if the individual in question leaves a member company for another?).
Anyway, the model I have in mind it the one of the Eclipse Foundation, but I haven't done that much research, and as I said before, I am very open to discussion.
I hope we will be able to discuss this further next week, but also that these discussions will be able to procede with the technical side of things during the sprint next week.
Regards,
S.
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 07:52 -0400, Stephan Richter wrote:
Also, I agree with Andreas and Philipp that developers should be members, not companies. Otherwise, how could I, as an independent developer, have a say? BTW, this is also positive for companies, since they can have several developers being members. In the proposed scenario, my one-man shop would have a lot of power compared to larger companies, such as ZC, Nuxeo, etc.
+1 if only because...
From what I read from Rob in an interview in LWN, membership to the
foundation will be funded by membership dues. I think the dues structure is what will eventually determine who can afford to become a member. I'd definitely pay for membership if I could credibly afford it. It seems like the easiest way to make sure this could happen is to charge on a per-person basis rather than on a per-company basis, with larger companies signing up more individuals as necessary/desired.
- C
Chris McDonough wrote:
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 07:52 -0400, Stephan Richter wrote:
Also, I agree with Andreas and Philipp that developers should be members, not companies. Otherwise, how could I, as an independent developer, have a say? BTW, this is also positive for companies, since they can have several developers being members. In the proposed scenario, my one-man shop would have a lot of power compared to larger companies, such as ZC, Nuxeo, etc.
+1 if only because...
From what I read from Rob in an interview in LWN, membership to the
foundation will be funded by membership dues. I think the dues structure is what will eventually determine who can afford to become a member. I'd definitely pay for membership if I could credibly afford it. It seems like the easiest way to make sure this could happen is to charge on a per-person basis rather than on a per-company basis, with larger companies signing up more individuals as necessary/desired.
- C
There are different aspects: there is the involvement of individual developers and there is the involvement of the company / university / organisation without which the developers would not be able to sustain development outside their spare time. So reducing involvement to a collection of individual members is not very representative of reality. If a company has put a lot a stake in a given technology (meaning not only financing a handful of developers) but taking a technological risk at supporting zope , it ought to weigh in the balance. Then of course everyone is free to do development in their spare time.
regards /JM
Chris McDonough wrote:
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 07:52 -0400, Stephan Richter wrote:
Also, I agree with Andreas and Philipp that developers should be members, not companies. Otherwise, how could I, as an independent developer, have a say? BTW, this is also positive for companies, since they can have several developers being members. In the proposed scenario, my one-man shop would have a lot of power compared to larger companies, such as ZC, Nuxeo, etc.
+1 if only because...
From what I read from Rob in an interview in LWN, membership to the foundation will be funded by membership dues.
Given that any actual facts and further discussions involving ZC have been postponed to the IRC chat on tuesday (which I'm perfectly fine with), I'm surprised to hear that I have to read LWN, some external and not freely available source, for further details...
Philipp
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 23:05 +0200, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
From what I read from Rob in an interview in LWN, membership to the foundation will be funded by membership dues.
Given that any actual facts and further discussions involving ZC have been postponed to the IRC chat on tuesday (which I'm perfectly fine with), I'm surprised to hear that I have to read LWN, some external and not freely available source, for further details...
I suspect this isn't Rob's fault, he probably didn't know that it would be a subscriber-only thing. The interview will be available for free on the 23rd (at http://lwn.net/Articles/139955/) . But of you're desperate, subscriptions at the "starving hacker" level are apparently something stupid low like $2.50US/month.
- C
Wow, what a difference two days makes. I heard about the ZF announcement by telephone two mornings ago, and I breathed a huge sigh of relief. It solves a problem we've been worrying about for years. It means we can sit across from a nervous IT director, and when he asks dubious questions about the steering and future of the Zope platform, we can say with certainty, "It's in good hands."
Reviewing the thread, I'm astonished at the negativity. C'mon, this is a *breakthrough*. It's a move that can ensure the future of Zope. Granted, it's prudent to be cautious, and there's a lot of work to be done, but it's a major step. Shouldn't we be using an Agile approach?
As for structure and neutrality, I think decisions should be left up to the developers. If they're not on board, there won't be anything. I'm not much of a developer, I'm a manager, and I know that attempting to pull developers 'over a bridge' is a bad idea.
Actually, I'm a vendor too. So wearing all these different stakeholder hats, I'm looking forward to the process. To be explicit: I'm prepared to invest in the future of Zope. kit
-- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Infrae . . . kit blake . . . infrae.com . t +31 10 243 7051 Hoevestraat 10 . 3033 GC Rotterdam . NL . f +31 10 243 7052
kit blake wrote:
Wow, what a difference two days makes. I heard about the ZF announcement by telephone two mornings ago, and I breathed a huge sigh of relief. It solves a problem we've been worrying about for years. It means we can sit across from a nervous IT director, and when he asks dubious questions about the steering and future of the Zope platform, we can say with certainty, "It's in good hands."
Reviewing the thread, I'm astonished at the negativity. C'mon, this is a *breakthrough*. It's a move that can ensure the future of Zope. Granted, it's prudent to be cautious, and there's a lot of work to be done, but it's a major step. Shouldn't we be using an Agile approach?
As for structure and neutrality, I think decisions should be left up to the developers. If they're not on board, there won't be anything. I'm not much of a developer, I'm a manager, and I know that attempting to pull developers 'over a bridge' is a bad idea.
Actually, I'm a vendor too. So wearing all these different stakeholder hats, I'm looking forward to the process. To be explicit: I'm prepared to invest in the future of Zope.
I'm sorry if I led anyone believe that I view this process negatively. That is absolutely not the case. I'm as excited and relieved as you, Kit. I personally have been publicly supporting the idea of self-governance of the Zope community for some time now and all of this brings us a huge step closer to it.
My concerns regarding the process (which might have interpreted as "negativity" towards the whole idea) were mainly oriented towards the way the initiation of the process is perceived. All of the self-governance we already have (e.g. zope.org collaboration and maintainance, Zope 3 development process, etc.) has been built up bottom-to-top, just like in any other open source community. Even the wish for self-governance of Zope itself came from the basis and has been expressed publicly since the Castle sprint or even longer. So, my remarks were purely there to state that the perception of this process being nothing but top-to-bottom (IOW, vendor-driven) were a limited view on things.
As anything else is mere speculation, I'm looking forward to hearing more details from those who initiated the process. I am confident that everyone in the community will be invited to participate, so that in the end we can all say that we as a community made this happen.
Best regards, see you on tuesday in IRC,
Philipp
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
kit blake wrote:
Wow, what a difference two days makes. I heard about the ZF announcement by telephone two mornings ago, and I breathed a huge sigh of relief. It solves a problem we've been worrying about for years. It means we can sit across from a nervous IT director, and when he asks dubious questions about the steering and future of the Zope platform, we can say with certainty, "It's in good hands."
Reviewing the thread, I'm astonished at the negativity. C'mon, this is a *breakthrough*. It's a move that can ensure the future of Zope. Granted, it's prudent to be cautious, and there's a lot of work to be done, but it's a major step. Shouldn't we be using an Agile approach?
As for structure and neutrality, I think decisions should be left up to the developers. If they're not on board, there won't be anything. I'm not much of a developer, I'm a manager, and I know that attempting to pull developers 'over a bridge' is a bad idea.
Actually, I'm a vendor too. So wearing all these different stakeholder hats, I'm looking forward to the process. To be explicit: I'm prepared to invest in the future of Zope.
I'm sorry if I led anyone believe that I view this process negatively. That is absolutely not the case. I'm as excited and relieved as you, Kit. I personally have been publicly supporting the idea of self-governance of the Zope community for some time now and all of this brings us a huge step closer to it.
My concerns regarding the process (which might have interpreted as "negativity" towards the whole idea) were mainly oriented towards the way the initiation of the process is perceived. All of the self-governance we already have (e.g. zope.org collaboration and maintainance, Zope 3 development process, etc.) has been built up bottom-to-top, just like in any other open source community. Even the wish for self-governance of Zope itself came from the basis and has been expressed publicly since the Castle sprint or even longer. So, my remarks were purely there to state that the perception of this process being nothing but top-to-bottom (IOW, vendor-driven) were a limited view on things.
As anything else is mere speculation, I'm looking forward to hearing more details from those who initiated the process. I am confident that everyone in the community will be invited to participate, so that in the end we can all say that we as a community made this happen.
Best regards, see you on tuesday in IRC,
Philipp
Hi!
I believe that what is important at this stage is to avoid what we call in French a "procés d'intention" (I couldn't find the English equivalent) which is a rhetorical figure used to promote a conviction based on speculation about supposed motives rather than facts. The more you address such accusations the more you make them appear as real.
regards /JM
Note that this article is now available without a subscription at http://lwn.net/Articles/139770/
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 23:08 -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 23:05 +0200, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
From what I read from Rob in an interview in LWN, membership to the foundation will be funded by membership dues.
Given that any actual facts and further discussions involving ZC have been postponed to the IRC chat on tuesday (which I'm perfectly fine with), I'm surprised to hear that I have to read LWN, some external and not freely available source, for further details...
I suspect this isn't Rob's fault, he probably didn't know that it would be a subscriber-only thing. The interview will be available for free on the 23rd (at http://lwn.net/Articles/139955/) . But of you're desperate, subscriptions at the "starving hacker" level are apparently something stupid low like $2.50US/month.
- C
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Oops, wrong URL! This is the right one: http://lwn.net/Articles/139955/
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 23:08 -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 23:05 +0200, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
From what I read from Rob in an interview in LWN, membership to the foundation will be funded by membership dues.
Given that any actual facts and further discussions involving ZC have been postponed to the IRC chat on tuesday (which I'm perfectly fine with), I'm surprised to hear that I have to read LWN, some external and not freely available source, for further details...
I suspect this isn't Rob's fault, he probably didn't know that it would be a subscriber-only thing. The interview will be available for free on the 23rd (at http://lwn.net/Articles/139955/) . But of you're desperate, subscriptions at the "starving hacker" level are apparently something stupid low like $2.50US/month.
- C
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
-
Andreas Jung -
Chris McDonough -
Jean-Marc Orliaguet -
kit blake -
Paul Everitt -
Philipp von Weitershausen -
Stefane Fermigier -
Stephan Richter