[Grok-dev] Re: What is Grok anyways... time for a name change? :)

[Martin Aspeli]

Sebastian Ware wrote:

>> Note also that we're marketing Grok to developers primarily, not to  
>> corporate/enterprise people. We do this as Grok is an open source  
>> project, and attracting developers is more important than  
>> attracting people into "enterprise". Open source projects that  
>> sound all enterprisey *put off* open source developers. Open source  
>> developers want to have fun.
> 
> Of course, the driving forces behind open-source developers will  
> vary, but I believe open-source developers want to feel that they are  
> part of something important. The fun part comes as a bonus.
> 
>> Note that for enterpriseyness Grok can also point to Zope, which  
>> has a foundation, etc, etc. Then, if Grok is successful with  
>> developers and attracts a critical mass, we'll have a large part of  
>> the battle for the enterprise already won. That time is the time to  
>> look into presenting another enterprisey face for Grok.
> 
>> That said, that doesn't mean I'm closed to tweaking our message so  
>> it works better. If a caveman puts off some developers, we can look  
>> into tweaking the caveman. We should just not forget our current  
>> primary audience for the message is developers.
>>
> 
> I agree. But once somebody wants to use it for real-world projects  
> there is bound to be a manager involved in the decision making, and  
> he will want to feel good too about the choice of framework. :)

This is very true. However, personally, I think a lot of open source 
frameworks try too hard to be all "enterprise" and fail because either 
(a) they're not or (b) they're not very good at that kind of marketing. 
By trying to hard, you're almost certain to fail.

Again, though, the message here is one we agree on: Grok means good 
things to developers (fun, agility, speed). Zope 3 means good things to 
developers (giant library, built by smart people) and to decision-makers 
(long history, legal foundation, some hope of finding qualified people).

> This is also a matter of emphasis. Whereas we mustn't forget the  
> managers, they shouldn't be emphasised too much. (Remember that for  
> each manager one can evangelise, there are a couple of developers  
> that could potentially contribute on payed time)

Exactly. :)

Martin