[Zope-CMF] Plone/Metadata/FUD

[hazmat]

On Wednesday 02 October 2002 02:31 am, seb bacon wrote:
> I think the plone team are doing a lot to bring people into the Zope
> fold.  It looks cool and make several usability improvements over
> CMFDefault.  I don't care if you call it a fork or a layer, if more
> people are using Zope/CMF then I'm happier.  I would rather 10,000 more
> people were using 20 forks of the CMF, rather than 100 people were using
> a single CMF implementation.  Let's get people on board; let's worry
> about the other stuff once we have sufficient momentum from a large
> enough community.  And this from someone who doesn't even use plone :^)

Well said! enlightened even.

repeating something i said earlier in a private email, 

the fact is, plone is growing the market place for itself, zope, and the cmf. 
that is definitely a good thing. i think this point needs more emphasis. the 
projects (opensource and commercial) with the most marketshare are end-user 
projects with good marketing. enlightened self-interest is a wonderful thing, 
grow the zope/cmf market, and the whole community of developers and users 
benefits.

lest anyone forget, the cmf community is borg, not highlander :-)

> > 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.
>
> One observation I draw from this discussion is that we should have some
> kind of conceptual / infrastructural framework for differentiating
> between Implementations (CMFDefault / Plone) and Framework (CMFCore).
>
> Ever since the CMF began, most people consistently (and understandably)
> don't get the relationship  between Core and Default.

i think the only real way to help make it clear is if their were an open 
source alternative to default, not layered over it, but alternative.

maybe it would be easier if it were more explicitly stated that CMFDefault is 
a basic customization of CMF geared primarily toward zope.org use cases... 
afaik, anyways. 

> In the future, I would like to see CMF releases available in 2 (or more)
> *separate* parts:
>
> 1) Download the CMF (actually just CMFCore)
> 2) Download an implementation (currently a choice of CMFDefault, Plone,
> mmmanager...)
>
> This approach has the advantages of keeping the conceptual break clean,
> and also possibly encouraging people to think outside the CMFDefault box
> a bit more.  There are more types of website than the member-centric
> document-centric portal...

What?! i had no idea ;-) perhaps you could share some of your experiences in 
building these types of sites with the cmf?

i'm not sure that the distinction between the cmfcore/default&others is 
altogether useful from a separate download pov, as all the current open 
source thingies build on top of the CMFDefault, not Core. which means if 
someone wants anything they have to go through at least two downloads, and 
possibly more. 

otoh maybe we could just tell them to use cvs :-)

cheers,

-haz