On 07 Aug 2001 18:42:56 +0200, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Michael R. Bernstein writes:
.... Therefore, Zope corporation must guard it's own brand (as well as the communities) by maintaining the distinction between the community and the company.
But, if you can trust the corporation and the community in a similar way, would you really need a difference in the visual "annotation"?
Hmm. While I can say that I trust the corporation and the community roughly to the same degree, I don't think that I trust them the same way, or for the same things. If there was truly no need to distinguish between the community and the corporation, then it wouldn't have been neccessary for various DC employees to say "I am not speaking for the company" at during various mailing-list discussions over the last two years. The line was clearer before (when ZC was DC), but there were still problems. As an example, DC and it's employees released various products that were clearly labled as 'unsupported', but people still expected the same level of free support on the mailing lists for those products (I've done this myself, a little). This is unreasonable, yet understandable. That sort of expectation is going to be even stronger in the future, now that the two entities names are so similar. Whatever can be done to create distinct identities for ZC and the community (that are nonetheless related) should be done. All of this is my own opinion only, and does not neccessarily reflect the opinion of my employer. :-) Michael Bernstein.