[ZF] Please comment! Re: Zope Development Process

[Jim Fulton]

Darryl Cousins wrote:
> Hi Jim and all,
...
>>> - We need a process for allowing people to contribute their code to
>>>   the source-code repository.
> 
> Better than now?

No, as good as now. As currently written, the ZF docs don't let people
become members until they have made substantial contributions.  They can't
check into the ZF repository, and thus, make a code contribution, without
being a member.

>>> - We need a process for contributing 3rd-party code to the
>>>   respository. (I would like to see this kept to a minimum, if
>>>   possible, by using eggs, rather than code copying, to manage
>>>   dependencies on 3rd-party code.

Actually, IP policy gets into a lot of this. I had missed that.
The process described there is rather heavy, but I think that's
a good thing in this case.

> Discipline controls along the lines of Stephan's proposal, perhaps
> including better than average documentation and additional information.
> A website and/or mailing list dedicated to the project demonstrates more
> than average commitment. I can imagine that eggs and build outs will be
> a part of that discipline in the future. Guided anarchy.

Sure, but that's a different issue.  The issue I was referring to was
dealing with 3rd-part code.  The committer agreement only allows committers
to check in their *own* work.  We need a mechanism to be able to check in
other people's work.


>>> - We need a way to invite committer members.
> 
> Not like selling cigarettes though, and no spamming. ;-)

Membership is a privilege and a responsibility. Committer members
have quite a bit of say in running the Foundation and we need a process
that assures that we invite people who are deserving and who will carry
out their responsibilities as members.

...

>>> We need to find a way to move forward, either by interpreting and
>>> following requirements set forth on these documents, or by trying to
>>> simplify them and following the result.
> 
> 
> Change Exhibit D to provide a separation of membership from commit
> access.

Yeah.  I also later realized that the IP policy,
http://www.zope.org/foundation/ZopeFoundation_IP_Policy_v7.pdf,
gets into this quite a bit.

...

> From my viewpoint I am comfortable with the repository as it is and I'm
> sure I'd get used another layout. I've been following the 3.3 branch for
> the last few months. I am accustomed to checking what is in the zc and
> z3c namespaces, and generally browsing the svn.zope.org repository.

Actually, these issues need not effect the repository, at all, other than
who has access to it.

> I guess the main zope bits are Zope2, Zope3 and ZODB and I'd be happy to
> see zc, lovely and z3c alongside.

Noted.

Jim

-- 
Jim Fulton           mailto:jim at zope.com       Python Powered!
CTO                  (540) 361-1714            http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation     http://www.zope.com       http://www.zope.org