My first attempt to post to this list bounced, because I'm not a
subscriber. Jim enabled me to post, so I'm resending, without
cc'ing the z3lab list again. If you hit reply-all, please add
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to the cc list (if you're allowed to post
there as well :-)
Hi all. Whew, lots of traffic, with good ideas and comments
made by all. While all of us at Zope Corp appreciate the
input, we can't lose sight of two points:
1) Even though lots of the "Rock Stars" of the Zope
Community are on one or both of these lists, not all are,
and certainly not the entire Zope Community (especially
_customers_), so these lists cannot substitute for the
entire input stream.
2) We have called for an International IRC chat to discuss
this next Tuesday, and tried to pick a time that could work
for people from the West Coast of the US all the way to
hardy souls in Asia, but at least Eastern Europe. Until
people can weigh in and get a sense of everyone's responses,
this list is just fodder for that discussion.
As such, it is highly unlikely that I will post again on
this specific thread to these lists before the IRC, so
_please_ don't be offended if you have a fantastic rebuttal
to a point that I try to make here, and don't get a
response. I just subscribed to the z3lab list (I'm not on
dev), and will see your response, and hopefully prepare a ZC
response for the IRC.
OK, enough with the background, on to make some points :-)
I found all of the discussion interesting, but I am also
confused by some of it. Specifically, the use of the Plone
Foundation as the model that we should all aspire to.
If I understand my facts correctly, the Plone Foundation was
kicked off (and likely funded by) Computer Associates (CA).
They still have 2 board seats as far as I can see. In fact,
for all the rhetoric about "individuals", each board member
has their company named after them, which implies to me that
people looking at that list should assume that they vote
the way their company would want them to, not the way they
feel about specific issues.
Specifically, if Norm Patriquin of CA leaves CA, will he
remain a board member, or does CA have some right to appoint
another director in his place? If the answer is that CA
controls the board seat, then please let's stop pretending
that this is all about "individuals".
It's obvious that companies do not vote, individuals vote.
It is also obvious that individuals who represent companies
are more likely to vote in a direction that is good for
their company. Nothing wrong with that (IMHO) as long they
can't force something on the rest of the members.
Second, if we had adopted the Plone Foundation organization
verbatim, just changing the word Plone to Zope, would that
have been 100% satisfactory to everyone in the Zope world?
If so, that would surprise me, but more importantly, it
would still have been a "unilateral" move on our part, not
to even allow potential dissenters a say. In other words,
there is no one model that will work for everyone, and we
are being careful not to set _anything_ in stone until we
hear everyone's thoughts.
If we intended to act unilaterally, and in only our
interests, we would have announced a completed Foundation
with a "take it or leave it" attitude, or we would have put
a very short date on getting it done. Instead, we announced
that it would be done by the end of October 2005, so that
_this_ process could have a real chance to succeed in an
open manner.
No one has a gun to our head to do this, and in fact, no one
has the slightest leverage on us to do this. We are doing it
because we _want_ to, because we think it's the _right thing
do_, and because we think the timing is right with Zope 3
ready for prime time, and ready to explode. If we wanted to
try and retain the maximum benefit from that explosion, we
would probably just keep it all to ourselves. We are not,
and we would like at least the benefit of the doubt as to
our motives, if not an actual "Thank You" :-)
Like Stefane, we too are slightly leaning towards an Eclipse
model. In that model, committers are first-class members,
and do _not_ pay dues! Companies and Customers (in their
term "Consumers") are first-class members too, but not only
pay dues (don't worry, we won't charge what they do ;-), but
also _have to commit development resources_. No one vendor
has _any_ control of _anything_ in the Eclipse Foundation,
but they don't apologize for the fact that the underlying
software is _strategic_ to the Vendor organizations in their
attempt to make a profit.
Stefane Fermigier wrote:
> IMHO, "vendor-neutral" means, in this context, that the
> Foundation must take into account the interests of all the
> stakeholders (individual hackers, vendors, customers), and
> shouldn't be interpreted as "vendor-free".
I agreed, and would add that "vendor-neutral" can also (and
IMHO should) be "vendor-friendly". Let's not forget that ZPL
is not GPL. We chose a commercially friendly license 7 years
ago, and have onl
