[jimmie] Walter, Albert, etc... DC has committed no offense here. They've committed no fouls. A few facts seem to be ignored in these pleas. Ownership is really a poor term to describe truly open source software such as Zope. Stewardship is a much better term. DC has stated that: 1. Resources are limited. Read the list, there are many pleas for various things for which DC doesn't have the resources for. 2. They are willing to make accommodations for people who are "contributing" to Zope and need something in core Zope to enable or improve Zope for said feature. 3. They are concentrating on their core interest/skills which currently is Content Management. [albert] Thanks for your comments. I recall your encouragement to take a look at Zope in an OpenACS bboard nearly a year ago and am responding in detail. I wasn't pleading but telling them about an opportunity, which Walter confirmed by promptly waving money together with a detailed analysis of requirements. http://lists.codeit.com/pipermail/zcommerce/2001-April/000418.html My understanding is that this is a common business model often used for obtaining resources. Other models such as issuing IPOs are becoming less and less plausible as time goes on. In responding I'm also attempting to signoff from the direction that has been taken in the thread I started so I can get back to the far more interesting stuff in messages from Walter and other lurkers that joined in, but seem to have been overlooked as a result of the absurd preoccupation with rationalizing DC's position instead of dealing with it's consequences. (I'm not referring to Chris's position, and am assuming that is not what jimmie is defending). So this is an attempt to summarize. Re ownership/stewardship I'm using the term used by DC. My understanding is that they are using it with a substantially similar meaning to "stewardship". In this context it refers to someone being responsibile for the ongoing maintenance and development of some software component. (Not necessarily by doing it themselves but having both the authority to take decisions about what must be done and the responsibility to ensure that those decisions are taken and those things are done). Whether rhetorically or not, the question Paul asked his customer Walter is central: "But concerning the remedy...is it *truly* the case that DC has to own this effort? After all, many of you know more about eCommerce than us. We definately should participate, though." My answer is "Yes" it is *truly* the case that DC has to own this effort - taking it as obvious that DC knows very little about eCommerce at all and that each of 1, 2 and 3 are also obvious truths which cannot usefully be applied to resolve *any* specific issue. More on the specifics below. "This effort" being integration of OpenACS4 with Zope with a view to actually being able to meet requirements of the sort stated by Walter. Specific customization in support of particular customers like Walter can of course be done by anybody competent. He did mention that he was heading off to arsDigita next week, after also mentioning that they want at least $1 million up front for an approach that he regards as inferior to a project led by DC based on Zope using ACS. I don't think he'll have much trouble finding Zope contractors who could do much better than arsDigita (together with arsDigita and OpenACS developers), with that sort of budget. I do think he'll get a less useful result, the spinoffs of which will also be less useful to the Zope community generally, if DC isn't involved in stewardship of the core interfaces. It's clear he knows a lot more about ecommerce and related issues than DC does and isn't particularly worried about that. People with any savvy don't bet their business on, and don't put resources into, open source development based on APIs that are not supported by a steward they can rely on to know how it integrates. arsDigita wouldn't know how to integrate with Zope, but DC should know how to integrate databases with Zope since it already does that and even maintains an Oracle adaptor for that reason. The integration Walter's got in mind is specifically with the Content Management System, which DC should know the most about, though other contractors could also do it well. But if DC doesn't take responsibility for core interfaces, Zope still doesn't have an ecommerce capability, whatever Walter gets. That is obviously not based on sycophantic admiration for DC since I'm saying they are making a major blunder and have copped a lot of shit for saying so. It's based on technical judgment about what is needed for such an integration project after having done some study of the issues. Personally, I'm more interested in the opportunity to talk about requirements with a domain expert like Walter that has such an unusually thorough understanding of both the requirements and some of the architectural issues than in either the fate of DC or the fate of Walter's business. Most of the requirements he stated happen to be useful for many other things. I'll be proceeding to do so if he and the other interesting lurkers that popped up are still around, even though I'm not available as a contractor for this stuff. I would have thought that DC would jump at the chance. Suspect there is just some problem due to current upheavals with change of CEO. Be that as it may I'm not impressed with the sycophancy. It doesn't help either DC or Zope for people to offer rationalizations for obviously dumb positions. As for ignoring the 3 facts. I am responding to you with agreement that these are indeed obvious truths because you are simply stating them as facts that can be agreed on. I ignored them when stated by Paul and focussed only on the specifics because I find it easier to separate issues of merit and "attitude" that way. Repetition of obvious truths, even when not accompanied by overt bristling, merely conveys an attitude of not being interested in the specific issue being raised. That of course is not an "offense" or "foul". However it does inevitably result in people either concluding that there is no point attempting to raise the specifics of an issue when it simply won't be dealt with on it's merits, or else - if it happens to be important enough not to just "get the message" and go away, doing whatever else it takes to make them pay attention. I have no problem with DC's general orientation. I just think they are making a bad mistake on a specific issue against their own interests and Zope's interests and I'm arguing the point. [jimmie] 4. Their consulting projects have not entailed eCommerce. Which leads to their conclusion of priority of eCommerce for them. [albert] A similar point was made by Paul in relation to Postgresql. The self-refutation included in the very same paragraph seems sufficiently generic to answer your point: "In fact, I don't believe we've had a single consulting customer that deployed atop PostgreSQL. You could certainly argue that, since we don't do it, it naturally turned out that way." [jimmie] Paul never stated (from my memory) that eCommerce was an itch that he had and would really like someone else to scratch it. The fact that DC would like or appreciate an excellent eCommerce product for Zope doesn't mean that they have any current needs of one. [albert] Here's the itch and (mildest version of) desire for someone else to scratch it: a) To me - while still "viewing this thread through the lens of hearing "I've got a great idea for someone else to do.": http://lists.codeit.com/pipermail/zcommerce/2001-April/000401.html vvvvvvvvvvvv
I would also guess that there would be at least *some* contracts that DC has *not* gained because the reason the customer wants the sort of things Zope does provide is closely connected with also wanting to charge for various goods and services that go with it and they decide they would prefer to deal with consultants that have a better track record on ecommerce.
Yes, you are correct.
I'm just guessing of course. Only DC can determine whether these, and/or other matters might result in tangible monetary benefit to DC.
Yes, it would be a tangible monetary benefit. One that might likely offset the time invested. Just like a long list of things that DC could do. But we're not a huge company. We've done the Open Source route hoping that folks like you, with a deep passion about a topic, will leverage the work we're doing for free and add to it. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ No problem with that mild version. Problem as explained previously and below is that I don't believe it can be done without DC ownership or stewardship of the relevant Zope APIs. That's the issue that cannot rationally be discussed until someone at DC has actually evaluated the ACS/OpenACS APIs and is in a position to have an informed view as to what role DC should or should not take in any effort to encourage people to put resources into building on Zope in a way that (incidentally to the people contributing their own efforts for their own reasons), scratches DC's itch for "some" story on ecommerce. Here's some stronger versions of the same "scratch my itch" theme running through Paul's remarks to me so far: vvvvvvvvvvvvv
An entirely separate company has put major resources into an SQL data model that is freely available open source. That saves an awful lot of manpower, just as many companies using Zope have been saved a lot of manpower by the resources DC has put into it.
Agreed. But conversely, if it was so simple, you could have done it in the time it took you to type up these emails. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ vvvvvvvvvvvvv
vvvvv
What more could a Zope guru want to persuade them to take a look at the possibility of demonstrating how much better that fits with Zope than with java or Tcl?
Manpower. ;-) ^^^^^
Well manpower is one of the major benefits you could get from taking that look.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps it could simply be DC doing all the work. Tell me, would *you* participate in the coding of the integration if we took a look? If so, are you interested in doing so *prior* to us taking a look, and confirming that this is a great, easy idea? ^^^^^^^^^^^^ No Paul - I'm not interested in doing any coding of the integration prior to you taking a look. In fact I'm not interested in doing any coding at all, though I did spend a week working on UML models of the OpenACS 3 and offered to spend another 2 weeks and get them done nearly a year ago, with no response. http://lists.codeit.com/pipermail/zcommerce/2000-July/000316.html This time the modelling is a lot simpler for ACS4 - so I've just provided links to the relevant design patterns. Their docs are pretty good too. For a totally bizarre version - "make it easier for me to understand what to do about my itch", see below. b) Responding to Walter as a DC customer known to Paul, here again is the itch: vvvvvvvvvvvvv
It certainly seems to me that ACS is eating Zope's lunch in the market for "serious" eCommerce solutions - and now that the WorldBank is investing so
That's probably true. eCommerce, as is obvious, hasn't been the place we've chosen to compete. But it's hard to be competitive in other areas without some ecommerce story.
much in the ACS through this "Gateway" project of theirs, with no corresponding investments in the Zope world, the trend can only worsen. So it seems to this particular buyer in the market (small potatoes as i am) that incorporating ACS functionality into Zope, instead of just waiting for someone to happen along and fund its development from scratch, is the
Understand, of course, that this applies to *lots* of things. And saying that DC has to eat it out of hide is OK, but there's a limit to how much we can apply that strategy to.
smarter way -- maybe even the only way -- to make it happen. Without industrial-strength eCommerce and all that personalization stuff that goes along with it and is so important to everyone these days, i'm afraid that Digital Creations may be relegating Zope to the prospect of diminishing returns in a market that will just have to expand without significant Zope/DC participation. If this is what you've been trying to tell Chris McD, then i'm afraid i have to agree.
You're certainly right that, if Zope wants to be competitive in eCommerce, then it needs an eCommerce story. The story is a bit murkier for competing in other areas, but it's likely that Zope should have at least *some* production-class story for eCommerce. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ http://lists.codeit.com/pipermail/zcommerce/2001-April/000402.html BTW I should mention here that the World Bank project is not particularly about ecommerce but about a "Community" system far more to do with "Content Management" - though of course practically any such project is likely to want to be able to take a credit card payment for buying a publication or something like that without being told the only facility available (Wampum) is "pre-alpha". Also BTW, the Wampum docs mention that work on it was sponsored by cash from DC, presumably because they know that and knew that they would have to be the ones to sponsor it if anyone was to come and build anything that needs payment facilities. My view is that they also have to finish it and do several similar quite small things, before there will be much more than prototypes available as a result of other people's work, plus be the ringleader of a fishbowl process similar to CMF if they want other people's work to integrate with Zope, and CMF in particular, enough to give them a "plausible story", as opposed to just a "story" on ecommerce. If it's done right, it could be a "brilliant story" because Zope is ideal for the "Content Management" side developed by DC that has a core competency in that - and already has the necessary facilities to be able to use SQL built by others with a core competency in ecommerce and related SQL. Walter, one of DC's customer's, has a clear understanding of that but DC doesn't. They might want to consult him as a source of expertize on what could be useful to them in the market. I certainly do (but I won't be offering to pay ;-) [jimmie] Anybody who uses Zope for website development receives monetary value due to the fact they did not have to pay for Zope or any other web app software. DC is a benefactor as such and not the beneficiary. If DC were the sole beneficiary of Zope, there would be no community, no one else contributing, no one else advocating, no one else desiring for ... Anybody who has sufficient need of an eCommerce product and builds it themselves in Zope is a beneficiary of building on the foundation of Zope. [albert] Fine. Some people have already been doing that and I have no doubt that work will end up scratching more than their own itch if DC takes responsibility for what *it* needs to do. Until that happens I do not believe this will result in anything that can be widely deployed enough to make a real difference or to scratch the itch that DC does have for an ecommerce story. As evidence I cite the fact that it hasn't happened so far. That ought to be sufficient for serious interest in discussing what else might be needed. [jimmie] OpenACS is a testimony to the fact that "ownership" by the "creators of the tool"TM is not necessary for success. OpenACS is a success in spite of not due to arsDigita's stewardship. [albert] There are many highly successful free software projects and some open source projects that are not dependent on stewardship by any particular organization (though often a defacto stewardship by some individual or small group within the wider developer community is critically important - often known as the "core team" and in at least one case as the "benevolent dictator for life"). Larger projects simply cannot do without it due to obvious needs for architectural integrity and stability in APIs. OpenACS is a spectacularly bad example for your point. It has been *completely* dependent on an ACS core developed essentially in-house by arsDigita and simply released under GPL without any significant "developer community" involvement at all. Up to now OpenACS has simply been *porting* SQL to a different dialect and have been severely hindered in that by lack of influence on decisions by the stewards that could have made such porting easier. There is nothing to port and therefore nothing for OpenACS to be successful in porting other than the ACS itself developed by arsDigita as stewards. Very little has been added, though much more will be now that the main hurdles are being overcome. Within OpenACS, porting of the "kernel" is entirely dependent on work currently being done by a core team of 2 or 3. An impressive team of developers for the rest of the ACS "core" is currently lined up at the starting gate with the obvious technical necessity of the core team deciding what has to be done undisputed. Only after that, and based on it, will it be possible for others to actually use and build on what the stewards are responsible for. (I'm not sure how much has been added by users of OpenACS 3 in using the core or how much has been added by the users of ACS 3, but the core itself depends on the stewards). Assuming that ACS really does want database independence, I would hope the OpenACS porting work would be folded back in to ACS (it has been designed to support *both* Oracle and Postgresql and any others that people wish to do the porting for). There would then be some complex issues about stewardship and avoiding a damaging fork will depend on the wisdom of the stewards. This whole area is murky at present as OpenACS is centered on AOLserver/Tcl whereas ACS has abandoned that for a java platform for the next major release, ACS 5. One thing it highlights however is the essential independence of the SQL for which arsDigita is undoubtedly the current steward, from web application platforms that might use it (along with other things they do), such as AOLserver/Tcl for which OpenACS is now the current steward, and Zope for which DC could be the steward. If Zope did integrate the OpenACS4 SQL and DC attempted to fork it, that would be a flop. They are not its steward and do not have the capability. [jimmie] There have been several consulting companies built up around ACS/OpenACS without requiring blessing from arsDigita. Rather than see DC go out and commit resources on eCommerce which apparently does not currently impact any of their consulting gigs. I would rather see them improve core Zope and continue on what they have invested their knowledge and skills in. [albert] There may be several built up around Zope too. But neither they nor the open source community built around Zope have more than a "voice" in the clear stewardship of the Zope core by DC. DC is certainly far more serious about putting actual resources into involving a wider developer community than arsDigita. But it is quite clear who is in charge of the core. Without somebody in charge of it there would be no core to build on and that somebody is DC. BTW while I agree with RDM's remarks "in theory". I don't agree it is actually a correct response to Walter's earlier comment: http://lists.codeit.com/pipermail/zcommerce/2001-April/000431.html a) There is of course no question of DC prohibiting anyone from developing anything based on Zope - and they have made it clear they would be delighted if somebody else developed ecommerce etc. b) As stated in jimmie's fact 2, it is also clear that DC would cooperate with any necessary changes to the Zope core. (I'm not aware of any that would be needed for the sort of things that Walter is looking for, but even if there turn out to be, there's no reason whatever to expect anything but cooperation). c) It's true that if DC dropped Zope or tried to do something bizarre there are enough skilled developers around to be certain that it would continue being maintained - which is a lot more reassuring for users of open source software than for most commercial software - including stuff from big companies. But DC isn't just the biggest consulting firm using a product that they happen to have developed as RDM seems to be suggesting. They are also the main developers and anyone proposing a fork would just be laughed at. (Which of course also doesn't prevent anyone developing specialized variants or using bits of Zope like ZODB independently). Customers like Walter who want major enhancements added to Zope, could certainly get them done elsewhere if necessary, but it would take longer, cost more and be generally less satisfactory than if project management was done by the people who know it best. So he was being quite realistic in saying that if DC says Zope isn't for ecommerce, there wouldn't be much point him arguing. Once a toolkit is available people who want it specially customized can certainly go to any consultants they like (though DC will still have a "natural advantage" in being perceived as the most likely to do a good job). But Walter is looking for a system based on Zope plus ACS and is already a customer of DC. He wrote an extremely perceptive analysis showing a thorough understanding of both his own needs and the strengths and weaknesses of both ACS and Zope, explaining why he wanted a combination of both. http://lists.codeit.com/pipermail/zcommerce/2001-April/000418.html In that he also referred to thoughtful contributions that had been made by others on the subject (no I'm not referring to the fact that he was agreeing with me, though that is so unusual it may perhaps color my view of him as a very perceptive person ;-) - checkout that particular message and then look at his others and those he referred to from the other lurkers that spoke up at the same time. The CMF is an "application" built on top of the Zope core, which can itself work with other applications and applets. It didn't happen just because DC needed it. They did need it and they put significant resources into making sure it happened. Others no doubt contributed to that and others will certainly build on it. The issue is whether there is anything similar (even though much smaller), in relation to ecommerce that DC would need to invest their knowledge and skills in for others to also be able to do so and whether DC should decide to do that. That issue can only be resolved by DC and so far they have not taken the necessary minimal steps in order to be able to find out. A rational explanation for that would be if jimmie's view that they have no such itch was correct. If they don't need it and any benefit to them would obviously be far lower in priority than other pressing concerns, there is no point even thinking about it. Since that doesn't appear to be the case from Paul's explicit statements, I would regard any such decision as irrational. DC has to make it's own decisions about what it will commit to, regardless of what either jimmie or I or anyone else may want. But I would certainly agree that it would be a bad move for them to get into developing (essential) SQL for industrial strength ecommerce, personalization, workflow etc when: a) They have no core competency in that area b) An open source solution that they can just plug into is freely available. But that isn't what they are being asked to commit to. Checkout the interaction with a DC customer right before our eyes in this list and it's pretty obvious that DC does have an itch. It's losing existing customers without taking into account the obvious facts about what "Content Management" is often used in connection with and the known facts about customers who also have related ecommerce (and/or "personalization" or "collaborative filtering") needs and decide to go elsewhere because of that. Paul has explicitly confirmed my "guess" that this would be the case. Here's the example that happened right here, immediately following above quote from Paul: vvvvvvvvvvvvvv
You're certainly right that, if Zope wants to be competitive in eCommerce, then it needs an eCommerce story. The story is a bit murkier for competing in other areas, but it's likely that Zope should have at least *some* production-class story for eCommerce.
For personalization, depends on you definition. We might alread have some of it.
Whaddya got? I've still got my ears on... |/|/
But concerning the remedy...is it *truly* the case that DC has to own this effort? After all, many of you know more about eCommerce than us. We definately should participate, though.
--Paul
You certainly shouldn't be going it alone, Paul. Without the interest of both the developer community AND business people in search of solutions, this effort would likely not succeed. But, presuming for a moment that the subscribers to this list could muster enough developers and business solution-buyers to warrant it, might you be willing to dedicate project management and technical expertise enough to do a proper opportunity analysis? IMO, unless DC is serious enough about this issue to make at least that sort of commitment, this worthy project is probably a non-starter. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ http://lists.codeit.com/pipermail/zcommerce/2001-April/000408.html It's as simple as that. Unless DC is serious enough about this issue to at least be willing to do a proper opportunity analysis, it is probably a non-starter. [jimmie] Someone with the need and skills for eCommerce should steward this project. DC has already provided the forums and resources (ZWiki, fishbowl, etc.) to permit someone to get this going. DC contrary to arsDigita has been much better at stewarding it's community. [albert]
From what I've seen DC has not only been much better at encouraging an open source community than arsDigita (which wouldn't be very difficult), but also has an exemplary record in that respect.
So why hasn't anyone stepped forward to steward such a project? Clearly it isn't the absence of forums, Zwiki and fishbowl. These need not be provided by DC either. There's also a Zcommerce mailing list and at least 3 individual projects. Something must be missing or it would have happened. I'd suggest what's been missing is DC *active* interest and encouragement on that *specific* issue. [jimmie] I too would like to see eCommerce well supported. The website I am currently working on will require such. When I get to that stage of development, if one isn't available, I won't badger DC, I'll build what I need. If it is good enough to contribute it back. I'll do so. [albert] Fine. That will make four. It still won't have happened. Whatever is missing will still be missing. [jimmie] DC has been honest and forthright about this. They have given answers. Don't badger them because the answers aren't what you wanted to hear. They may be close to DC (Washington DC) but they aren't politicians. :) If anyone here has unlimited resources (unlike DC), please contribute, hire DC. I'm sure Paul (oops, just read the PR, maybe this should be Brian) would be more happy to recruit more Pythoneers to work towards building a better Zope. [albert] No problem with Paul's honesty or forthrightness. Problem is that Paul has honestly and forthrightly confirmed he hasn't a clue as to what needs to be done and honestly and forthrightly" demanded that someone else solve *that* problem: vvvvvvvvvv My gosh, functions and triggers in Python?!!? OK, Albert, score one for you! :^) Thanks for bringing that on our radar. I'd like to emphasize that Albert's idea has merit. We'd like to learn more about the idea, as we don't know as much as we should about it. But someone needs to make it easier for us -- unfortunately, it's just reality that we don't have as much time to investigate possibilities as we would like. ^^^^^^^^^^ http://lists.codeit.com/pipermail/zcommerce/2001-April/000405.html What the *fuck* am I or anyone else supposed to do, to make it "easier" for DC to know as much as it should about an idea Paul thinks might have merit, than spell it out as to where to send someone to take a look? Fred asked for tips so I repeated the original URLs for him. They did get buried in the thread long before Fred could have been expected to have seen them. I'm not expecting a reply "please make it easier for me to click on these links". http://lists.codeit.com/pipermail/zcommerce/2001-April/000429.html (BTW thanks to Michael Bernstein for rescuing the original posting from the obscurity in which I jumbled it with other matters that I am actually more interested in. He is not to blame for the consequences ;-) In case an "executive overview" is needed I also supplied (later) this. vvvvvvvvv A good starting point for understanding what ACS does along these lines is Philip Greenspan's online book (also available as an elegant coffee table edition for the suits, with the same stunningly beautiful and irrelevant photos ;-) http://www.arsdigita.com/books/panda/ Especially chapters 9 and 14. The whole book is also necessary reading for a serious study of what ACS is (or was) about. ^^^^^^^^^^ http://lists.codeit.com/pipermail/zcommerce/2001-April/000413.html If DC's investors need powerpoint slides to authorize a week's time on checking out whether something like this might be worthwhile, they should get some new investors. Things are pretty grim for a lot of open source businesses and are likely to get worse. http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-5112816.html But if DC hasn't got the resources to spend a week out of pocket investigating whether it could meet Walter's requirements, it probably has a legal obligation to file for insolvency. On a any reasonable sort of contract that much work is usually done out of pocket just in bidding for it. I don't need Paul's "blessing" as to whether "Albert's idea has merit". I'll close with the final words in his previous response to me: "I suggest you participate, rather than pontificate." [jimmie] No offense intended towards anyone here. I just wanted to state my opinion on DC and on this matter. I have been a long time member of this community, since it was a Bobo list, before Zope was open sourced. Jimmie Houchin [albert] None given and none taken. Any vehemence is in summarizing as your perfectly reasonable post provided an opportunity to do so. I'm not a member of either Zope or OpenACS communities but have been lurking for quite a while (since your suggestion to do so in fact ;-) If anyone wants to take offence, that's entirely up to them. It would be more useful to respond to the arguments, and even more useful to just respond to Walter's requirements. I'm not planning to badger DC any further on this. Included in the current links I provided for Fred are also links to the stuff I posted nearly a year earlier: http://lists.codeit.com/pipermail/zcommerce/2001-April/000429.html I haven't bothered them since, until now, and I've said my piece now. Not really interested in further discussion of DC. Am interested in discussion of technical issues for ecommerce, collaborative filtering, workflow etc, and on Walter's requirements and the points raised by others that joined in on that. Now back to Walter's stuff, when I get some sleep. http://lists.codeit.com/pipermail/zcommerce/2001-April/000418.html