[ZWeb] Zope.org - take 3?
andrew at zope.com
Tue Jan 25 10:10:43 EST 2005
Mark Pratt wrote:
> Hey Chris,
> I think we all think your proposal is cool (only the planning and few
> people get to make decisions thing worries me a bit)
> but as Sidnei pointed out we should put more effort into "reforming" or
> cleaning up the existing Zope.org before we risk
> <cliche>"throwing out the baby with the bath water"</cliche>.
> Considering the many hard hours Sidnei has put in and the
> insight into relaunching the Zope.org site I'm very inclined to follow
> his guidance.
I disagree Mark. Sidnei is about the only one who has even close
intimate knowledge of the underpinings of zope.org. If there are others
who are they and where are they? I've got no problem if they were
maintaining things, I would stfu. They're not - so by golly.....
I might be "over reacting" in my aversion to touching anything on
zope.org, but as I noted in my original message: Not one single person
is chomping at the bit to work on it. I would like to resolve that.
That is indication that the site is going to continue to degrade and bit
rot. Personally I'm tired of the conditions which have caused this
condition to be pervasive for the past 3 years. I don't think it's
anyone's fault - so I'm not pointing fingers (whomever might get
offended, don't). Of course, these are only my personal opinions of
condition and cause.
Out of the many talented people, why is it everyone wants to take stuff
off zope.org and move it elsewhere? Zope wikis, zope book, software
projects, tips, ad naseum. I proposed nearly two years ago internally
that we should make zope.org nothing more then the software and
documentaiton site for Zope the product. Focus small and concise - and
doing that sole job well. Everything else we should support and link to
off site where people are more willing and capable of supporting the
various tasks. I would say, ala php.net
I still think this is the best idea, especially with the resources and
continued condition of zope.org maintainers.
> On Jan 25, 2005, at 10:05 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
>> Quite disappointed not to see any replies to this, even if just to say
>> "no, we don't want that".
>> What do people think?
>> Chris Withers wrote:
>>> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>>> which I understand. The biggest problem that creates is a leadership
>>>> vacuum and any efforts would soon peter out in a flood of
>>>> discussions from a whole lot of more or less well-meaning people. It
>>>> cannot work without a tightly organized *small* group of developers
>>>> that can work without interference from the community at large.
>>>> That's how things get done.
>>> OK, I'll bite ;-)
>>> I would be happy to head up this effort, and I'm prepared to commit 1
>>> day a week for both February and March to working on Zope.org and
>>> managing the effort of those prepared to help. All I ask in return
>>> would be authority from someone who can grant it to yes/no things
>>> that I'm helping with (to avoid endless discussions that go nowhere)
>>> and the right to produce a case study of the project for my company's
>>> website. Who's in a positon to say yes or no to these requests?
>>> Anyway, that aside, what I'd propose is:
>>> 1. A small, tightly focussed project
>>> 2. Keep the look, feel and functionality aimed for to be identical to
>>> what's there now (hopefully eradicating the myriad of pointless
>>> ramblings that side tracked the NZO effort)
>>> 3. Totally focussed on software, NOT content.
>>> 4. Aim at building the site with as simply as possible, using no
>>> fancy new software, and sticking to the absolute bare minimum to make
>>> it work fast. If fanciness is needed, let it be in error reporting
>>> and site logging domain, rather than "cool new features".
>>> 5. Have an SVN checkout of the instance home of the storage server
>>> and each of the app clients (the client would probably be branched
>>> off a common base, with only the config files being different) so
>>> that people can checkout the software on a local machine and develop
>>> stuff using the usual branch-and-merge model.
>>> 6. Enable all "system" software (eg: python, zope, cmf) to be easily
>>> upgraded as needed, so the latest bugfixes can be used as soon as
>>> 7. (maybe) a functional test suite that actually tests all the
>>> functional aspects we're aiming to support. Does anyone have lots of
>>> experience producing functional test suites?
>>> Okay, what do people think?
>> Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
>> - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
>> Zope-web maillist - Zope-web at zope.org
> Zope-web maillist - Zope-web at zope.org
Zope Managed Hosting
Systems Administrator/Software Engineer
More information about the Zope-web