Reposting to z3lab list only... On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 08:54 +0200, Paul Everitt wrote: > On May 12, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Julien Anguenot wrote: > > I have some work I've been doing on splitting CMS into content > production and content delivery. I'm working on the latter, with > something for mod_python to do assembly and skinning. Thus: > > 1) Is content delivery a topic that is in scope for Z3 ECMS? Can you define it a bit more? > 3) If so, I propose a layout where top-level directories reflect that > major subsystems people expect in an ECMS. In Nuxeo's diagram, these > are the circles near the bottom. Are you talking about the top level package structure of the repository? If so, I would recommend we take a look at the way Kapil has laid out the Plone SVN repo (he's also done this for us here at CIGNEX and it's really nice). Obviously talking about repo layout at this juncture might be a bit premature, but Kapil's setup makes it easy to include packages managed in external repositories. Don't ask me how the voodoo do. By example, zemantic is hosted at codespeak, and I'd love to see it included in some way with this new projects, and I know others would too, but is it going to have to be moved? Seems unnecessary if we can "stitch" existing repos together into one product, and, maintenance issues aside, would promote the idea of cooperation. Ok, the rest of this is in response to some of the othe conversation on this list. On the subject of due credit, once I wrap up these two big projects I'm currently burning on, CIGNEX has promised me time to develop the next version of Zemantic, which will be updated to the new rdflib 2.1. This will include my long promised integration with the Zope 3 catalog. As CIGNEX will be paying for this time, they will rightly expect some credit or inclusion in the market-spiel when all the other companies are mentioned. I've come to the conclusion that most customers really, really don't understand how commercial companies and open source software interact and there is a huge market win to anyone who has the gift to enlighten them. The first time they hear of this concept of free software in collusion with for-profit companies, they fill their own heads will all kinds of ways that it "must" be happening which have no reflection in reality. These misconceptions bleed out everywhere, especially into the mass media. I've never had a non open source based job in my life and my Dad still doesn't understand how, and he still spews the same MS-NBC fed bullshit about how it can't be possible. Maybe we can capture the market in a major way by making this distinction more clear and say to folks, look, all these companies are backing these individuals, and these other individuals who are working in partnership with them. We don't necessarily have to draw lines (or leashes) to make it explicit, if CIGNEX is backing me and I'm working in conjunction with someone independently, in a way CIGNEX is backing both of us and we're backing CIGNEX. So there is a team, and then there is a pool of companies invested in the success of that team. Making the distinction clear will enhance the standing of both the companies and the team, and make it clear to others that there is no murkiness here, only confidence and cooperation. If we make this explicit, and get wording to that effect from all the companies and put that on the site in market-quote-speak then the pointy hats will get it that we are a strong coalition. -Michel
Hosting: Nuxeo: Zope service provider