[Zope3-dev] Re: zope3 website report?

[Philipp von Weitershausen]

Tonico Strasser wrote:
> Martijn Faassen schrieb:
> 
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I'm very curious to see what work was done on a Zope 3 website at the
>> Neckar sprint. Can someone send a report to the list?
> 
> The plan has been to migrate all the Wiki pages from zope.org to zope3.org.

Interesting, and a bit sad to hear that plans seem to have been settled
now to host Zope 3 on its own site. We nowadays require a proposal for
essential code changes to Zope 3, but when it comes to community things
like the hosting of Zope 3, there is not only no proposal but not even a
heads-up. We are actually informed about what's going on while it's
going on; at least the NeckarSprint page didn't say anything about work
on zope3.org.

Here's my 2 cents, even if I might be too late (but hey, when should I
have brought this up?): I think it's a *bad* idea to host Zope 3 on its
own site, because:

a) It will be yet another systems we need maintainance volunteers for.
As it seems we don't even have enough for the current zope.org right
now. If we had more volunteers with more time on their hands, they would
have already been on the matter and the dog-slow system would have been
improved a long time ago (note that I'm not necessarily saying
replaced). A zope3.org will eventually need some caching, it will
eventually need user management, etc. We already have a human resource
problem on the development side, what makes everyone think we won't have
it on the maintainance side?

b) It is exactly the opposite of what we've been trying to do for the
last couple of months: convergence, not divergence! If we want Zope 3
and its Component Architecture to be recognized by people, it needs to
be a first class citizen on zope.org, not some separate site. Why?
Because Zope 2 will soon incorporate lots of Zope 3 technology (it
already does incorporate some), making it all look like two separate
worlds is far from reality.

In conclusion, I'm a bit disappointed by the flow of information and the
lack of communication in this matter. I'm not at all happy about the
solution, as I've stated above.

> The new thing is, that Wikipages should be editable with a WYSIWYG
> editor after the migration. I hope that there will be an option to
> choose structured text too.

Putting WYSIWYG integration into a list of first-class todo items seems
like wrong prioritization to me (I'd rather have a stable backend
first), but I'm not going to get into that now. It seems that community
input wasn't wanted (and I would love to be proven wrong on that)...

Philipp