[Zope-CMF] Plone/Metadata/FUD

[Ausum Studio]

One of the nicest things about open source CMS options is that they are
'neutral' platforms for enterprises to build and deploy their own solutions
on top of. Organizations are so different one to another that many attempts
to abstract and release a complete and finished general-purpose CMS use to
fall into the problem of being hard to customize later. So this is what
causes Zope and CMF to bright: In combination they provide a clean and smart
framework that you can use either to build a single floor wood house, or a
fifty floor steel building.

What makes CMF so clean to me is precisely the fact that it is a work in
progress, and that because of that it still lacks of the kind of tools that
maybe a single floor constructor would've never heard of, but which are
absolutely crucial for a technician up in the 42nd floor of a tower being
built, in order to continue his job. Currently anyone in the last position
is (hopefully) used to create that particular tool or to use anyone else's,
thus leaving the distribution free of extravagant machinery that may confuse
a home contractor( "do I really need this tower crane?"); and if the tool
proves itself it will be well received by small and large developers - we
aren't talking about tower cranes but maybe more simple ones - then it gets
integrated into the core, so increasing the features in the right way: they
won't be bogus features (unless not in the sense of those high-end suites
that provide -and charge for- things that will need to be reimplemented
anyway.)

Within this point of view, current and future CMF's 'implementations'
(CMFDefault, Plone, and future alikes) are in the position to subtly alter
this balance, and so I think we might be aware of its implications. To take
Plone as an example, my belief is that it's got a great attention due to it
provides many tools that are friendly to intranet's end users, and that's
fine, we all benefit from that. But what I find somehow harmful is when it's
unadvertently associated to Zope and CMF in the way of being its only
possible end user experience. (I'd hardly find a mislead there, but it's
happening for good or bad.)

To tell the good thing, it's cool when you find a client whose only need is
Plone. The bad comes when new potential CMF users and developers join the
community just having Plone and the fulfillment of its goals in mind,
because their attention will not be to the framework itself but to its
gadgets. How can this be harmful? Well, in the end, because of a probable
Plone-oriented development, the CMF may be perceived like making possible
nice looking office buildings and that's it. But what about the skyscrapers,
the temples, the stadiums, the malls, the airports, the museums, the
libraries,...? As members of a CMS community, in the broad sense, we need to
atract people in the need to build all those building types, right? (sorry
about the architectural analogies).

Generally speaking, I think it would be cool to think of a formal treatment
to existing and new implementations. A suitable canonical name for them to
start with, for example. Is the term 'implementation' correct?  I vote for
'subframework' or anything else. One thing is for sure: an 'implementation'
is not a 'skin'. ;)



Ausum






----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Everitt" <paul@eurozope.org>
To: "hazmat" <hazmat@objectrealms.net>
Cc: <zope-cmf@zope.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Zope-CMF] Plone/Metadata/FUD


>
> On mercredi, oct 2, 2002, at 03:09 Europe/Paris, hazmat wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > these aren't forks they are progressively layerd systems that build
> > functionality that users and developers can avail themselves of. ie
> > Zope->CMFCore->CMFDefault->Plone.
>
> This point about layering is very important.
>
> > also i'd like to note that this conversation has been mostly civil
> > (with one
> > noteable exception), of which i'm glad, please lets keep it that way.
>
> Well said, Kapil, the voice of moderation! :^)
>
> Here's my two eurocents on the Plone/CMF discussion.
>
> a. Zope is a framework for web applications and CMF is a framework for
> content management.  Neither claim nor aim to be end-user products.
> Plone does, and should thus have its own identity.  This is even more
> important for Zope 3.
>
> b. IMO, Plone is as much a fork of CMF as CMF is a fork of Zope.
> Stated differently, Plone is as incompatible with the CMF as the CMF is
> incompatible with Zope.
>
> c. I've spent a lot of time with Alex and Alan (in person, on the
> phone, in IRC, email, etc.) and I don't think they are misleading
> anyone.  Others might have better evidence or different
> interpretations, so understand I'm just giving a personal opinion.
>
> Plone is an actively developed end-user product built on the CMF.  This
> is a good thing.  It's also free, as in beer and speech.  Also a good
> thing.  There is already one for-fee packaging of Plone, and hopefully
> more to follow.  More good things.
>
> A recently-recommended book says "[m]ost conflicts are based in
> differing interpretations of the facts."  We should step back from
> heavy artillery and find out how the situation can be improved for all
> our viewpoints.
>
> --Paul
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@zope.org
> http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf
>
> See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
>