Hi Martijn. I think a tool to assess the impact on each project is
necessary. A risk assessment of some type could realistically quantify,
identify imported code, estimate of the size of the community depending
upon the sources, provide rough conversion estimates, and also identify
alternatives to P3K. Risk assessments for the frameworks teams (willing
to conduct an assessment) can be put together with a general impact
statement from the framework and library project leaders and presented
to the python team. Efforts should be coordinated with deadlines.
A statement of general impacts could include those anticipated by the
communities being served by sources, and include general impacts
assessed on future marketing and consumption of what will soon become
legacy code. It should also include an answer to why porting to P3K will
be different that previous porting scenarios. The effort should include
the formulation of recommendations to the python team. The objective is
not to restrict the effort of the python team, but to assist the team in
guiding their decisions. It is more difficult to dismiss facts and figures.
Before proceeding with anything, the perspective from our own project
leadership needs to be communicated and clarified. I have not yet heard
anything from Jim or Zope Corporation on whether there may already be a
plan of sorts to address P3K. I'm only willing to become involved on the
basis there is consensus from our own project and that the effort is
supported.
I would recommend the Zope Foundation meet on this soon to at least
build consensus and agreement on how this effort should be handled.
Consultation with the Plone Foundation would go a long way in
establishing their buy-in to this process. I believe a general statement
should be communicated back to the zope lists in the form of an
announcement when an assessment/coordination strategy has been
determined. It ought to convey the action that will be taken to assess
the impact and the efforts that will be made to coordinate with other
projects to meet the future python release. This should give folks a
sense that something is being done to work together cooperatively with
our communities and the python team to address change. If there is
consensus, I'd recommend the ZF appoint at least one key Board member to
direct and to be accountable for these efforts. This will be a critical
junction in zope's history. I am not a ZF member but am prepared to
assist with this effort together with other interested folks.
Regards,
David
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
David Pratt wrote:
[snip]
Communication with the core python team on impacts could create a
cohesive strategy for the future and improve buy-in if there can be
agreement on how to move forward.
While I fully agree, my one (accidentally started) communication with
the core Python team on my worries surrounding this left me with a bad
taste in my mouth. I'll just need to get over that, I know, and I'm sure
I put my foot in my mouth in a few places, but when people express their
worries they shouldn't be responded to in the way I was responded to.
Anyway, you can expect defensive responses from the Python 3000
developers and we'll need to get past that.
It may be difficult to get more unified support from the light
framework project leadership since porting these frameworks will take
less time. In any case, I believe this dialog likely needs to come
sooner rather than later, particularly from the leadership of the
framework projects. I am not sure if some of this at least occurring
informally, but I get a sense that formal discussion with the python
team is needed soon and well before P3K is ready. It would at least
provide some sense of how we will be navigating inevitable changes to
the language (and to determine impacts on the zope framework and our
own development decisions). With a plan and some consideration by the
python team, the objectives of P3K may not seem so bad.
You're making very good points. We should indeed come up with a strategy
to approach the leaderships of other web frameworks and large libraries,
to see whether we can get a common communication channel going, to which
we should invite the core developers.
David, could you take the lead on this? I think we need to come up with
an announcement inviting people, a mailing list, and a wiki, to start
with. I'd be happy to help with this, but we need someone else to take
the lead (my reputation with the core developers has been damaged by the
previous fracas anyway). I can coordinate this effort with the Zope
Foundation board should it be needed.
The best initial strategy, I think, would be to approach some individual
figures within these communities privately to gauge their interest and
see whether we can come up with a joint position of some kind.
Regards,
Martijn
___
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@
