[ZF] Re: [Zope3-dev] Official Zope packages
jim at zope.com
Wed Jul 25 11:16:17 EDT 2007
On Jul 25, 2007, at 10:30 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
> [Moving the discussion from zope3-dev at zope.org]
> Am Mittwoch, den 25.07.2007, 10:05 -0400 schrieb Jim Fulton:
>> Some high-level comments.
>> I think you raise some good questions.
>> I'm not sure that what namespace package something is in is a good
>> indicator of "officialness" or quality.
> It's a very simple low-tech indicator.
So we don't disagree. :)
>> I'm not sure what the value of "officialness" is.
> My interest is to use it as a way to collectively decide where I (and
> gocept) spend time contributing.
OK. Since I don't know what it means, I don't think I'd use it that way.
> The repository is becoming a bit too large to randomly look at
> stuff and
> still be efficient and effective.
Potentially, the PyPI trove classifiers are helpful for this. You
don't want to randomly look for things, I agree. I'm guessing that
most people want to look for packages based on:
- what they do
- their quality
- their maintainedness
> I just had an Idea: It could help to think a bit different and move
> from "official" or "core" to a different concept:
> The repository always hosted multiple projects. I never paid too much
> attention to the CMF packages and didn't pay attention to the ZODB
> Zope 2, Zope 3, ZODB, CMF are easy to distinguish as points of focus.
> 200+ packages sitting next too each other don't allow any focus at
> making it hard for me to decide which of those to support.
> I'm happy to support something with many packages, however, 200+ is
> too much.
> Maybe establishing some working groups that take care of sets of
> packages might be worthwhile.
> We could look at the existing packages and try to come up with some
> groups where people could say "Hey, I'm interested in this topic in
> general" and contribute.
IMO, it is not a good goal to find maintainers for projects in the
repository just because they're there. It might be a good goal to:
- Move projects out of the respository or to an unmaintained section
of the respository when they cease to be maintained.
- It might also be useful to create a separate area of the repository
for exploratory projects.
For me, there are two criteria for decoding what to work on:
- They help or interest me (or ZC) directly,
- They are important for furthering the health of the community or
I don't spend as much time as some might think I do or should
thinking about what falls in the second category. I pitch in when
something's obvious and when I can. It would be nice if more people
helped figure that out. (I miss Paul's contributions there.)
A separate issue I thought you were talking about is making it easier
for consumers to tell what they should use, but I don't think that is
the problem you are trying to address in this discussion.
I'd be interested in hearing other folks thoughts on this.
> If we could establish working groups that have some focus, those
> could decide to take over the maintenance of a certain package or not.
The authors of the foundation documents seem to anticipate this kind
of thing. It needs someone to get it started.
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
More information about the Foundation