[Zope-dev] My thoughts on the development process

[Casey Duncan]

--- Martijn Faassen <faassen@vet.uu.nl> wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> I've read parts of the open letter threads just now.
> There's a lot of
> talk about how if only we have better tools the
> whole process will go
> better and Zope will get more contributors.
> 
> That's a typical hacker response, and I do this
> myself as well.
> Throwing more technology at a problem doesn't always
> make a problem go
> away. And though technological solutions to social
> problems are nice if 
> you can have them, and we should look for them, they
> don't always work.

I agree, the problem is more social than
technological. However, cool technology that saves
time rather than wastes it, makes contributing a
pleasure rather than a pain, would be a great benefit
IMHO.

I was actually really down on Zope on Wed and Thurs. I
was about ready to go and do something myself. Mostly
writing and theorizing at first and then developing.
However, Friday turned me around. I don't want to
start from scratch, it's too hard. I don't want to
"build" a community from scratch, it's damn near
impossible. We've already got a tremendous community
here, and it hasn't realized its potential even.

So, I decided to stay here and do my theorizing and
tinkering with Zope stuff, even if I'm not in 100%
agreement with the way everything is done. And if
nobody likes what I do, then I'll have my own Zope the
way I want it thank you. If people like it then fine,
they can have it.

Nothing technological changed my mind, it was purely
social.
 
> I'm not convinced more technology will make the dead
> fish problem go
> away. I think the contributing process is in fact
> too heavyweight. It
> should be easier for people to get in drastic
> changes to Zope. The only
> way for people to take more responsibility if they
> can actually have it.
> Only a few people will take it, but that's more than
> what is possible
> now, with possibly the single exception of my taking
> responsibility for
> ParsedXML. And until recently I was still in the
> position of doubting
> whether I really had it formally, not just de-facto.
> I kept asking for
> approval and guidelines from the official
> maintainers, but they were too
> busy (no blame to them), so I went 

It will be a slow and deliberate process to allow
"outsiders" the ability to make big waves. It has to
be in many respects. But I think each contributor will
slowly make part of the core their own and take the
initiative with it.

> 
> I dread having to go through the fishbowl to add in
> my 'node path'
> implementation to ParsedXML. I've done the design
> work,
> I've implemented most of it, and I feel I'd have
> mostly wasted time writing
> a fishbowl proposal. I hadn't even explored the
> problem enough to be able
> to do that. I needed to prototype it to understand
> it. I've discussed some
> issues with people locally and  and on the Zope-XML
> mailing list. And
> I'll probably release a version in a few days.

Yes, prototypes are extremely valuable, more-so than
fishbowl proposals to us hackers. But not everyone can
appreciate a prototype, because the audience for
feedback is not always hackers. Making a prototype
work for non-techies is a lot of work too...

> 
> Perhaps adding Formulator to the Zope core would be
> nice eventually. But
> going through the fishbowl bureaucracy would take
> forever. I only have so
> much time to spend on it, and I'd rather spend time
> improving the product
> itself.

Yup, there needs to be people charged with analysing
and taking outside products and integrating them with
the core platform. A process to do this should be put
in place.

> 
> And now look at how the Zope core is actually being
> developed. Sure,
> there's lots of stuff in the fishbowl about what the
> Zope future should be like.
> Plenty of stuff, though some stuff is rather hard to
> find. But I have a lot
> of praise for what the Zope Corp people have
> accomplished it it; it's a lot
> better than having no such thing at all, even if
> it's only used as 
> a notification service in part.

I agree. It's better than nothing.
 
> The main thinking about the directions of Zope is
> not done in the fishbowl or
> on the lists, it's in the minds of the talented
> people at Zope Corp and in
> the brainstorm sessions they hold together. That's
> the natural way people
> work. I work that way too. Such a process can occur
> on mailing lists as
> well, but it's very hard to break into it. I've
> tried several times.
> I'll keep trying as I'm convinced it's possible, but
> it takes a lot of
> persistence. Time will tell. On the Zope-XML list I
> just post regular updates 
> about my thinking to encourage discussion, and
> sometimes that works.

There needs to be some way to elicit discussion.
Again, I think this is a social issue. We need to
"market" the idea that the community voice matters,
and that feedback is a valuable contribution, no
matter at what level it comes from or how it is made.

I intend to try to do this in whatever ways I can
think of.

> 
> So what am I trying to get at with this mail? One
> thing is that
> the process is too heavy-weight right now. The other
> thing is that 
> the core coders at Zope Corp are in a position
> nobody else is in, and
> that should change. They are the only ones that can
> get around the
> fishbowl if they so desire. They can use the
> fishbowl in effect as a 
> notification service. Not that they want to; I don't
> doubt their
> good intentions for one minute.

That probably won't happen until a significant core
module is in the hands of an outside community member.
Then I think it can happen readily.

> 
> But I want to be able to use it like that too when I
> need to. Others
> should be able to as well. I think I and a few other
> contributors are 
> slowly getting to that position, but it happens too
> slowly and takes way
> too much persistence now. So let's trade in some
> risks to the Zope core
> development (rash action and messed up stuff
> happening once every while),
> in exchange for a lot more active contributors.

Once the testing framework is totally nailed down so
that all the requirements can be accounted for, then I
think this might be possible. I don't know how close
we are to that tho...

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Martijn
> 

I think these discussions are incredibly healthy. Lets
keep up the dialog.

-Casey

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
http://shopping.yahoo.com