[Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope3-Users] Visionaire! (All your problems, solved)

[Paul Everitt]

Jeff Shell wrote:
> Yes. There's a dominant Zope name out there. It's not the Component
> Architecture nor is it built on it. It's starting to use it, but it's
> not based on it. However, since the project that Zope 3 [AS] came out
> of is still identified in the Wiki as the 'Component Architecture'
> project, maybe the '3' can be dropped for that one. But not for
> application server:
> 
> That dominant Zope, aka Zope 2, is also an application server. So
> there really needs to be a separate definition. This was discussed
> here a couple of months ago when people were enamored with the concept
> of totally different names or code names or release names, which I was
> against.
> 
> Zope 3 is Zope. But Zope 3 is Not Zope. Zope 3 has *some* degree of
> buzz around it, more than something with a new name. I still believe
> that the '3' has meaning, at least for now. Maybe it can disappear
> over time.

[snip]

Caveats up front:

1) I know I don't have much useful to say, but I will anyway. :^)

2) I wholeheartedly endorse the discussion Jim has prompted.  He is 
making some observations that are getting lost in the discussion about 
his proposed solutions, IMO.

3) I think the observations you just made are similar to his observations.

I think Jim's point can be summarized in a famous quote from the ancient 
philosopher Ric Flair: "If you wanna be the man, you gotta beat that 
man."  If you want call yourself Zope, what expectations do you need to 
meet for what audience?

Alan and Alex brought up a nice discussion once about Plone having a 
middle class.  Zope used to have a middle class, but Zope 3 has left 
that group in a "to be determined later" status.  Which is odd, as 
creation of a middle class was what really differentiated Zope.  Now we 
have to compete on very similar terms to other projects (and we're 
getting crushed on the mindshare.)

So if you're going to call yourself Zope, you probably have to say "we 
love our middle class".  If you don't, the odds are stacked against you, 
as you have to appeal to people that have a negative connotation of "Zope".

For the most part, Zope 3's primary uptake is the CA.  I would be 
surprised if more than 10 installs in the world have end-users using 
Rotterdam.  I would also be surprised if there are more than 20 people 
worldwide in Zope 3's "middle class".  Instead, Zope 3 components get 
used by Zope 3 component developers to build completely new finished 
applications atop the CA.  Or the components get used in Zope 2 or 
non-Zope systems.

On the latter point, I think Zope 3's future is in granularity.  Others 
have said this too.  Zope's battle-hardened bite-sized chunks do things 
other projects simply don't contemplate.

But let's face it...as long as those chunks wear the name "Zope", half 
of the other projects will never consider it.  "It's a competitor", "I 
tried Zope and hated it", "I don't like Python databases", "Don't make 
me march under your flag", and other feelings that, while things have 
changed in reality, are true in perception.

On to a concrete proposal, which I realize is just another log on the fire:

1) Audience==Middle class: Keep the name Zope to apply to the 
application server and the middle class.  Basically, Zope is the assembly.

2) Audience==Python: Pick a new name for the top-level package of 
components.  For example: "zed3" for the naming.  E.g. 
zed3.pagetemplates.  (Examples: SchoolTool, Tiks, Oxfam America via 
Enfold, etc.)  Don't heavily brand zed3.

Stated differently: brand the sea of components different than the 
assembly into an app server.

Market the first at the people that actually liked Zope.  Market the 
second at the people that didn't like Zope.  Over time, make the first 
built out of the second.

If you're in the "change Zope 3 and I'll leave" camp, you're probably 
most interested in the components.  You're probably not interested in 
deploying end-user application server deployments.  You're probably not 
interested in the middle class.  None of Zope 2 would ever make it into 
the zed3.* package space.  So nothing to fear there.

This tries to solve the branding problem mentioned of "introducing one 
more name".  For people interested in the app server, for the middle 
class and the business decision maker, there is no change: it's Zope 2 
blending with/into Zope 3.

For people interested in the components...let's face it, the word "Zope" 
would have been a dead-letter anyway.  For *that* audience only, there 
is a new word involved.  People who detested Zope (check comments my 
weblog post for evidence thereof, nice to know Satan commissioned Zope) 
are *really* unlikely to return to the word "Zope".

--Paul