> When we first opened the fishbowl, it was with the certainty that we > wouldn't get it right immediately. That's why we went with the intentially > low-tech approach of a pile of Wikis. That first step actually worked > pretty well for a while until we hit critical-Wiki-mass and there were > suddenly too many proposals / projects to follow easily. So please don't > think that we are somehow attached to the current fishbowl implementation > as some sort of be-all-end-all.
I think that there ARE problems that can not be solved on a mailing list or in the fishbowl. One of them is doing a good general design (which we MIGHT need for some of the Zope 3.0 issues). I followed all the stuff about the CMF and formerly PTK and knew that it was heading to a direction I didn't want, but at the same time I felt that it would not help if I just contributed to the mailing list. Maybe this was a personal problem of mine, but I don't think so. IMHO, there are two possible approaches to problems like that (major design issues I mean): a) dictatorship, if the dictator is really good in his job (e.g. Jim Fulton has done a great job with regard to the design of the ZODB ) b) meeting in real live (or at least in real time) Some of the core architecture of the KDE KParts component model was developed on the KDE 2 conference AFAIK. I think we might have to do sessions like that at the upcoming Zope/Python conferences ... Joachim _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )