Re: Zope3 name

Paul Everitt wrote:
> On Tuesday, Feb 11, 2003, at 11:07 Europe/Paris, seb bacon wrote:

>> Why not have a name which does not apparently
>>    preclude parallel development?
> 
> I think this is a reasonable suggestion and has precedent in the industry.
> 

> When MS moved to NT
...
> When Apple moved to a new OS
...
> When Apache moved to Apache 2
...
> Any other examples?

When Bobo moved to Zope!?

> It seems like a valid argument.  I agree that calling it Zope 3 will 
> give a false impression to people that have already invested in the Zope 
> world.

Glad we agree ;-)  Anyone want to argue the toss?  What are the 
counter-arguments?

> IMO, Zope 3 is being positioned as appealing to people that want to 
> start over in Zope, not really for people that want to preserve their 
> investment.  I believe the position on the latter group is: "Stick with 
> Zope 2".

Right.  I think this is the approach with the most promise, which will 
keep everyone happy.

seb