[ZWeb] NZO pre-alpha Announcement and Call for volunteers
Sun, 16 Feb 2003 00:20:28 +0100
At 11:51 PM 2/15/03, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
>On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 11:33:18PM +0100, Erik Lange wrote:
>| It's a great job Sidnei!
>| I just haven't seen the answers on the issues queted 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 ?
>Answer at the end.
>| 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
>| >>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.
>| From Guido:
>| Subject: [ZWeb] Reopening the Plone issue -- but not here, please
>| List-Archive: <http://lists.zope.org/pipermail/zope-web/>
>| Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 15:24:44 -0500
>| 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.
>| Sorry.. I must have missed this other list. What where the conclussions ?
>Quoting Rob Page from http://www.zope.com/News/ZopeRoadmap
> The imminent completion of the NZO project (or at least the beta
> thereof) makes near-term changes to the implementation of NZO
> inappropriate. This near-term implementation has both "stock-CMF" and
> Plone interfaces. The NZO team will move forward with what works best
> and most reliably.
> Once we find stability in the new zope.org software and in the
> Working Group approach to zope.org, the notion of using Plone to
> enhance the zope.org site will be considered from a functional and
> maintenance point of view along with other applications of preference
> to other community members.
Qouting Poul Winkler:
OK, I've now read:
as well as the notes linked to from
which Guido posted today.
Let me be sure I've finally got everything straight.
Trying to combine everything I've read recently, I come
to these conclusions:
1. N.Z.O. will run on CMF and/or some technology built on CMF.
2. Sidnei's alpha, which is anticipated Feb. 13, will demonstrate
two interfaces: "just CMF" and Plone.
3. Guido wants the community to decide between the aforementioned two.
No other proposals are up for consideration at this time.
4. Other proposals (Nuxeo CPS or whatever) may be debated at
some time in the future, but **not until n.z.o. is stable again.**
In other words, there might be another round of this bickering
some day. ;)
5. Silva is not up for consideration, now or anytime in the
forseeable future, because it is not based on CMF.
Has 2 and 3 been dropped? or waiting for CMF1.4?
I think the presented pre-alpha is perfect to represent Plone. Keep up the
good work ! :-)
I'm sorry if I was too early to go to the next step (3 and 4). Or has there
been a conclusion on the point Aussum raised?
I consider CMF to be a toolset one can build a CMS from.
Plone IS a CMS - Robert Rottermann