Re: Message received :)

Sorry for the delay in responding, I've been on the road.

Jim Fulton wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> There has been a lot of really great discussion on this list. You've
> sent a couple of *very* strong messages that have been heard:
> 
> - It's critical to the many Zope businesses around the world,
>   including ZC, that the transition from Zope 2 to Zope 3 be as clear
>   and understandable as possible.

Yep, good.

> - The technical transition is *very very* important to people. People
>   very much want to be able to transition their Zope 2 applications,
>   including content and software, to Zope 3. They are willing to run
>   conversion tools, but they want the process to be as simple as
>   possible.
> 
> Given the concerns raised, I'd like to encourage this group to
> continue helping with the communication about and planning of the
> transition.  Among other things, I'd like to get your input on:
> 
> - The renaming of the thing currently known as Zope 3x, and

Ok.

> - The release schedule for the thing currently known as Zope 3x.
>   My sense is that there is concern that we are making alpha
>   releases while the system is still in a state of flux.  While
>   this is consistent with my understanding of the meaning of "alpha"
>   releases, I understand why some folks feel this sends the wrong
>   message. I'm open to scaling these early releases back or calling
>   them something else.

I'm ok with making alpha releases of Zope 3x, especially based on some 
of the specific points you've made in this thread.

I don't think you can make organized progress on 3x without making 
alphas, so it's good to keep them coming.

> I'd appreciate it if someone or a small group (2 or 3) of people would
> volunteer to guide and summarize the discussion.

Hee hee, you mean, "sacrificial lambs", not volunteers. :^)

Seb, perhaps you and I could do this?  Basically, try to get a 
checkpoint on where we are in this discussion.

> Second, I really understand how important the technical transition is.
> Before I understood it. Thanks to your input I really really really
> understand it. :)
> 
> It makes no sense to put much effort into the technical details of the
> transition until the thing being transitioned to is really well
> defined. This summer would be a good time to put focus on the
> technical transition details. We, where "we" includes some of *you*,
> will put a lot of effort into transition techniques. This would be a
> great topic for sprints this summer and fall.

I and others have had concerns with this.  Fortunately, Jim told me in 
IRC that the schedule calls for transition elaboration to happen 
*before* any production release of 3x.0.0.  Only some extraordinary 
reason would have the new stuff go out before consideration of old stuff.

I'm willing to accept that position on faith and support this approach. 
  I don't think Jim would violate that best-effort pledge without having 
some reason that is good for the entire Zope community and all the Zope 
companies whose viability is on the line.


Based on that, Jim, what do we need to do?

--Paul