names

Ken wrote:
 >What about the fact that Zope 3.0 will be backwards compatable with
 >ZCS 1.0?  In fact, it will be much more like ZCS 1.0 than it will be
 >like Zope 2.0 -

I think you're confusing underlying implementation with API.  According 
to Jim Fulton (and others):

 >    Zope 2.x == Any Zope releases [...]
 >    Zope 3x.0 == A complete, usable Zope without backwards 
compatibility [...]
 >    Zope 3.0 == The successor to Zope 2.x

the primary difference between Zope3x and Zope3 is that Z3 contains 
backward API compatibility with Z2 making it a worthy successor to Z2.  
(As you note, the underlying implementation will be closely tied to 
that of ZCS1.0, but that's all (as I mentioned in my proposal) "behind 
the curtains and under the covers".)  The "Zope" name presumably refers 
to API compatibility (while the "3.0" refers to the implementation 
upgrades).  I believe that's the (implicit) intention of Jim's naming 
rule:

 >I'm not open to picking a a different name for Zope 3.0.

and I think it makes sense.  The continuity (compatibility) is 
important, and the name should reflect that.

The only question remaining (admittedly significant) is whether the 
backward compatibity will be full or, if not,  how complete the 
backward compatibility will be.  There have been mixed signals on this 
point, so it seems an open issue so far.  Perhaps you have information 
on that issue to share?

 >despite the fact that it's named _completely
 >differently_, in numbering and words, from ZCS 1.0?
 >I think this would be extremely and unforgivably misleading.

See API issue above.

 >Hmm.  That's a characterization i often connect with the worst kind of
 >advertising/marketing missteps.  I don't think or mean to say that
 >anyone here had the intention to be misleading, but i think it would
 >be.

You lost me on this one, but I suspect it's best resolved by 
distinguishing between implementation and API, above.  If not, please 
clarify and support.

 >And i think it's a sign that the appearance (name) is being
 >given, just a tad, too much consideration - exceeding consideration
 >for, and losing touch with, the basic technical reality.

I do believe that naming is not a cure.  However, I believe Jim's rule, 
my tweak, and Seb's further tweaks make a lot of sense as a 
clarification of current Zope naming strategy.  Clarity for those new 
to or outside the Zope community was the original goal and worthwhile 
in the face of a challenging and potentially confusing transition.

 >Maybe it should be "Zope X3", then "Zope 3" when backwards compat is
 >achieved.  (This appeals to the naming scheme that the US military
 >used for experimental planes and rockets, most famous one i remember
 >the X-15 rocket plane.)

X3 may be attractive to you, but the origin of this issue is confusion 
to non-core people.  I do not believe you are part of that target 
market, so you are not going to experience the confusion.  Hackish 
names are not very clear.

The ZCS (Zope Component System) starts with a Z (for Zope), advertises 
the new technology under the covers (components), and implies a 
different "System" than Z2.  It also has a techier name than simply 
Zope, so those less experienced with Zope will be more inclined to 
pursue Zope until ZCS folds into Z3 with full community support.

-=-

It sounds to me like the issue is really pretty simple at this stage: 
there's one open issue:

AGREED:  Z2.x
UNDER DISCUSSION: Z3X.x
AGREED:  Z3.x

The only real question mark is step 2.  So, maybe a vote would solve 
the issue?  The candidates I recall are:

Zope 3X.x (i.e., no name change, maintain status-quo)
ZCS 0.x
Zope X3.x
Zope2004 (which I proposed but prefer less than ZCS)

I'm sure there are others.  Please post other desired candidates.  I'll 
jump the gun and vote for

+1  ZCS 0.x

= Joe =