[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] RFC: Reunite Zope 2 and Zope 3 in the source code repository

[Jean-Marc Orliaguet]

Martijn Faassen wrote:

> Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> It is a bit like this: the zope2 community wants the zope3 technology 
>> and zope3 wants the zope2 community.
>
>
> I like this analysis. :)
>
>> I think the question about the technology should be treated as such 
>> on a technical level, by bridging the technical gap (Five, common 
>> repositories, writing tutorials for zope2 developers, collaborating 
>> on common modules, adapting zope2 concepts like TTW editing to Zope3 
>> but without reproducing the zope2 skin and templates mess, etc).
>>
>> But the question about the communities involves more complicated 
>> aspects, i.e. marketing issues, licenses, competition, strategies, 
>> etc. The repository is not the answer. This has to be solved on a 
>> higher level, Zope Foundation, updated ZPL license, ... where a 
>> social contract is agreed on.
>
>
> Be careful with what you're implying with words: marketing aspects 
> more complicated than code, "higher level", etc. I don't necessarily 
> agree with the underlying assumptions.
>
> While I fully support efforts surrounding the Zope Foundation, I 
> really think that this is not the right level to solve community 
> issues. A Foundation can make social contracts all they like, for 
> instance, but if people in the community don't follow them, nothing 
> will happen.
>
> Marketing issues and strategies are frequently happening a bit more 
> subtly than you seem to say here. The difference between the 
> "technical" and the "community" level is far less clear than you make 
> it seem.
>
> Five, for instance, is *not* just a technical project. It never has 
> been. Five is a community project at least as much, to change people's 
> *minds*, to merge communities, to change the shape of the Zope 
> business, as much as it's to make technical changes. That's why 
> there's talks given about conferences, for instance. These things go 
> hand in hand.
>
> Merging the repositories is also not just technical. It's clear enough 
> that it's not -- the discussion in this thread is not about technical 
> issues *at all*. They're about impact on the people involved in Zope 2 
> and Zope 3 development.
>
>> So let's not pretend that everything can be solved on a technological 
>> level even though lots of it can ..
>
>
> We're in open source. Our solutions are frequently technological *and* 
> community-based. That's the point of open source. Let's not 
> artificially separate the two issues.
>
> Regards,
>
> Martijn


Hi Martijn,

I think you're mixing the notions of "community" and of "community of 
interests".
 
I don't think that the goal is to merge communities, the goal is to make 
good software and not have different entities fight on framework 
technologies. It is to stir common *interests* in the technology.

On the technical level CMF is used by many, but still different 
communities. Five is a community project used by different communities. 
This also shows that technology merge does not entail community merge, 
because everyone comes with different goals, backgrounds, and this is sound.

Python is a community project, not everyone who uses python is in the 
same community (reads the same mailing-lists, go to the same 
conferences, develop with zope or twisted, ) even though there is a 
strong community of interests.

I think that you want technology merge in the first place, and not force 
people into communities through technology.

Regards,
/JM