Re: Zope3 name

Ken,

Thanks for the detailed response.

I felt the need to rant because I perceived two "camps" forming: on the 
one hand, "we should reconsider the names for the Zope3 products"; on 
the other, "we will change the names for Zope3 products over my dead 
body."  It *sounded* to me like the latter group was refusing to get 
involved in the debate because they thought it was stupid, and that 
annoyed me.

Now you have clarified what you were saying, I realise that my 
perception was completely inaccurate.  This misunderstanding was where 
the "coup" idea came from :-)

I apologise for perhaps over-reacting.  I have seen the "marketing 
sucks" attitude from techies before, so I was making an assumption which 
are completely unwarranted and does you an injustice.

I'd also like to emphasise that I'm not completely fixed on this name 
idea; but I think it is important enough to warrant some serious 
examination.

So, where were we...

Ken Manheimer wrote:
> I'm saying that putting a completely different, incongruous name on an
> interim release will confuse people, technical and non-technical
> alike. 

OK.  I'm saying that (A) the name under discussion is *not* completely 
different or incongruous, and (B) it will enlighten people.  Perhaps.

I do have at least *some* reason for thinking that, viz. some positive 
comments on this list, and in conversation with people.

> [a complete name change] is
> being designed to *mask* information.  That is a dubious proposition,
> one that needs to be supported with solid reasons, marketing or
> otherwise, and i don't think the reasons are good.

I disagree.  The proposal to call the-thing-being-worked-on-now "Zope 
3x" is misleading, because there is very little continuity between it 
and Zope 2.  I have been convinced that the proposal to call 
the-thing-which-will-be-compatible-with-Zope2 "Zope 3" is not misleading.

"Zope Component Server" suggests just about the right continuity to me, 
  because it starts with the word "Zope" and is descriptive of what it 
does (q.v. Joseph's recent mail). I don't think it masks anything.

<snip stuff about "good" vs. "bad" marketing>

(I'm glad we agree :-)

> Like i said, "clear" is a judgement call, and those advocating 
> 
>                            Zope 2 \
>                                    - Zope 3.0
>     Zope Configuration Server 1.0 /
> 
> may see it as somehow being clarifying.  I Do Not, and think
> specifically it is not because it loses mnemonic, orienting clues in
> the name. 

(That should be 'Component' server)

The only thing "Zope Component Server" *loses* is a higher version 
number than Zope 2.  It *gains* some descriptive qualifiers.  I think 
the bandying about of a "3" version number at this stage is precisely 
the cause of the current confusion in the community.

I have still to be convinced that any obscuring is being proposed. 
Could you try again?

> That is why i suggested being explicit about the backwards
> incompatibility, rather than choosing what i see as an arbitrarily
> incongurous name for the intermediate release.

I don't agree that it is "arbitrarily incongruous" - I think it is 
meaningful.  I also think we may come up with something better.  But 
really, I think "Zope Component Server" is OK.

However, I acknowledge that there may be a problem in giving an 
intermediate release a special name at all, because it may appear and 
then disappear again.

I posed a question in a previous post, relating to this point: is there 
any future for a "pure" Zope 3, without Zope 2 cruft?  Or is my whole 
idea of "cruft" a misconception?

> No, i suggested being more clear about the distinction in the name,
> rather than (what i see as) an arbitrarily incongruous one.

OK - I've missed how you propose to clarify that distinction - could you 
elaborate?

> As i said above, i am particularly interested in clarity - stuff that
> helps everyone get oriented according to their concerns.  

Yep.

> There may be some marketing technology that involves using 
 > obscurity to improve the sell
<snip>
 > - but i
> *strongly* expect that...
<snip>
> ..the effects of esoteric tricks are so relatively far
> down in the noise that they're not significant to us.

Again, I don't regard what I am proposing as an "esoteric trick" or as 
employing "obscurity".

> What i would like to achieve here is that, instead of resorting to
> vague appeals to marketing and how us techies don't understand it, we
> instead try to justify particular according to how it will clarify the
> situation.

Right - what I want to do is continue this discussion, and then augment 
it with some real "marketing" data.  Note that I don't pretend to have 
much marketing expertise myself either :-)

> I don't object to marketing.  I do - and am - objecting to what i see
> as harmful loss of clarity being proposed.  Whether or not clarity is
> being lost can be debated.  I can't do much about "techies don't
> understand marketing, and this is marketing, so you don't know what
> you're talking about".  Maybe my view is exaggerated/paranoid, but i'm
> increasingly hearing this, or something approaching it.

Again, see above.  I think I have misconstrued the "two camps" 
situation.  The last thing I want to do is curtail debate.

> Ok, i guess i made a mistake when i muttered "losing touch with
> technical reality", it sounded like a personal attack.  I really
> didn't mean it that way - i'm sorry i wasn't more careful!

Yeah, it was probably *all* down to me misreading that muttering.  Let 
the debate continue... :-)

seb