NZO and Plone (Was: Re: [ZWeb] Not another ___Nuke site, please)

Paul Everitt
Sat, 15 Feb 2003 23:20:02 +0100

I think that the only thing concluded at this point has been to take 
some small steps and see what happens.

For instance, in Paris, Sidnei and Alex worked on a skin that doesn't 
look like Plone, which was a concern of a number of people.  If nobody 
helps on Plone, and if as you suspect, nobody will like the resulting 
website, I'm sure Plone as *one of the choices* for nzo will not go 
very far.

I think the most important thing is that people with strong opinions, 
and I've certainly been a loud whiner in the last six weeks, need to 
switch from criticism to contribution.  For me, it's definitely 
put-up-or-shut-up time.

Yes, I think Plone is the fastest path to the best site, but I realize 
others feel differently.  As long as there is an open process that 
leads to a fair decision, I'll support it either way and contribute 
either way.


On Saturday, Feb 15, 2003, at 22:52 Europe/Paris, Erik Lange wrote:

> Dear Paul,
> As you wrote yourself, Aussum has a point below.
> I don't wan't to rant Plone, but it seems that something has been 
> concluded. Is it wrong to ask about the thoughts behind ?
> At 11:34 AM 1/14/03, Paul Everitt wrote:
>> Ausum Studio wrote:
>>> What it's in discussion, up to the extent of what current nzo 
>>> development
>>> responsibles allow, is whether or not the new ZopeOrg should use 
>>> Plone for
>>> the sake of a faster deployment and future maintaining facilities, 
>>> or not.
>>> If the problem was reduced to that I'd say OK, but unfortunately 
>>> nzo's
>>> technology adoptions will be a reference point of what Zope and its 
>>> Content
>>> Management Framework is, and therefore will act as an endorsement of 
>>> the
>>> whole community (or at least ZC's on behalf of it) to the design 
>>> decisions
>>> of its developers.
>> This is an important and useful point.  I'm not sure, though, what to 
>> conclude from it.
> <snip>
> From Guido:
> -oOo-
> Subject: [ZWeb] Reopening the Plone issue -- but not here, please
> List-Archive: <>
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 15:24:44 -0500
> Status:
> <snip>
> The reason why Zope Corp is not super-keen on having the site run on
> Plone is one of support.  Once Sidnei has delivered the site and is
> retired, when the site dies at 3am, whose beeper goes off?  Not mine,
> but that of some poor schmuck of a Zope Corp sysadmin, who will
> attempt to fix the problem.  When there's a problem with the Zope
> software that he can't solve on his own, who gets called at 4am?  Not
> me, but someone else at Zope Corp who knows a lot about Zope.  This
> guy doesn't know anything about Plone, but he knows CMF.  If (God
> forbid) the problem is caused by something that Plone does differently
> than CMF, he's stuck.
> But there area ways to deal with this, and I now think that we can be
> much more rational about this decision.  I've talked this over with
> Sidnei, and he agrees.  His suggestion is to take this to another
> list, since zope-web is only a small (albeit oh-so vocal :-) fraction
> of the Zope community.  I'm all for it, but I'd like to stay out of it
> myself, as long as the above support concern is somehow addressed.
> (One way to address it would be to promise that the site will still
> work if the Plone stuff is removed, leaving standard CMF stuff.)
> I'll task Sidnei with raising the issue in an appropriate list.
> -oOo-
> Sorry.. I must have missed this other list. What where the 
> conclussions ?
> Kind regards,
> Erik Lange