Mailing List Archive

Geoff Davis wrote:
> I think that people in the Plone community would be willing to help out
> with getting such a site set up. The bigger task would be moving
> community content to the new setup.
>
> Is there any interest?

I hate to say it in this context, but not if it's Plone based. Once
bitten, twice shy and all that. Plone was the big promise for the
current zope.org and it simply hasn't delivered...

Chris

--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

On 2/28/06, Chris Withers <chris@simplistix.co.uk> wrote:
> Geoff Davis wrote:
> > I think that people in the Plone community would be willing to help out
> > with getting such a site set up. The bigger task would be moving
> > community content to the new setup.
> >
> > Is there any interest?
>
> I hate to say it in this context, but not if it's Plone based. Once
> bitten, twice shy and all that. Plone was the big promise for the
> current zope.org and it simply hasn't delivered...

CPS then? ;-)
--
Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/
CPS Content Management http://www.cps-project.org/
_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:07:22 +0000, Chris Withers wrote:

> I hate to say it in this context, but not if it's Plone based. Once
> bitten, twice shy and all that. Plone was the big promise for the
> current zope.org and it simply hasn't delivered...

Yes, Chris, your great love for Plone is well-documented. Without knowing
much about the details, my take is that the current zope.org woes
represent more of a problem with process than one of software. After
all, Plone doesn't maintain itself, nor is Plone code the source of
problems arising from a mangled Zope migration.

I think the community would be well-served by a Zope 2 site that has the
following properties, regardless of whether it runs on Plone, CPS, or
something else:

* The site's functionality should be sufficiently narrowly defined that
building and maintaining it are straightforward tasks. I don't think it
makes sense to try to maintain all the stuff that has built up on the
existing zope.org site over the years. It's fine to keep the old stuff
around in its present form, but I don't see much value in trying to
continue to forward port it. Splitting the site into an actively
maintained part that focuses on software distribution and documentation
and a minimally maintained part that continues to serve up the old stuff
is one way to accomplish this goal.

* The site should be built largely with off-the-shelf components. Since
much of the community's energy is focused on Zope 3, it doesn't make sense
to invest a lot of work in custom code for a Zope 2 site. Given the sorry
state of the current site, having something running sooner rather than
later would make all of us look better. PloneHelpCenter and
PloneSoftwareCenter work well now. If there are CPS / Silva / whatever
alternatives, those would be possibilities as well.

* The site should be built with software that is actively maintained
independently of a zope2.org site. Since a Zope 2 site is unlikely to
receive a lot of ongoing attention, it is best that we use components that
have an active support base from other projects. PHC and PSC fit the
bill. If there are CPS / Silva / whatever alternatives, they are worth
considering as well.

Doing nothing means that we are stuck with a broken and unmaintained Plone
1 site as our public face for awhile longer. I don't think any of us
really want that.

Geoff

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 08:39:51 +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:

> CPS then? ;-)

Are there good CPS analogues to PloneSoftwareCenter / PloneHelpCenter? If
so, that would be good, too.


_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

On 3/1/06, Geoff Davis <geoff@phds.org> wrote:
> Are there good CPS analogues to PloneSoftwareCenter / PloneHelpCenter?

I doubt it, although I have no idea what they do.

I was joking, really. ;) (Although CPS has one benefit over Plone;
it's faster, especially under loads).

--
Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/
CPS Content Management http://www.cps-project.org/
_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 17:11:00 +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:

> On 3/1/06, Geoff Davis <geoff@phds.org> wrote:
>> Are there good CPS analogues to PloneSoftwareCenter / PloneHelpCenter?
>
> I doubt it, although I have no idea what they do.
>
> I was joking, really. ;) (Although CPS has one benefit over Plone;
> it's faster, especially under loads).

Yeah, Plone can be a bit pokey -- we're working on it! With the new
caching infrastructure in the CacheFu product, it is quite speedy.
plone.org, which uses it, does just fine under heavy traffic.

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

Hi Geoff,

Geoff Davis wrote:
> Yes, Chris, your great love for Plone is well-documented. Without knowing
> much about the details, my take is that the current zope.org woes
> represent more of a problem with process than one of software. After
> all, Plone doesn't maintain itself, nor is Plone code the source of
> problems arising from a mangled Zope migration.

Yup, you've hit the nail on the head. But, Plone has proved itself to
require more maintenance than its predecessor.

> * The site's functionality should be sufficiently narrowly defined that
> building and maintaining it are straightforward tasks. I don't think it
> makes sense to try to maintain all the stuff that has built up on the
> existing zope.org site over the years.

Yes indeed.

> It's fine to keep the old stuff
> around in its present form,

I've changed my opinion on this over the last year to be inline with
Jens and Andrew: dump the lot, start again...

> continue to forward port it. Splitting the site into an actively
> maintained part that focuses on software distribution and documentation
> and a minimally maintained part that continues to serve up the old stuff
> is one way to accomplish this goal.

That's what happened last time, until the old zope.org died a death and
we lost the whole issue tracker ;-)

> * The site should be built largely with off-the-shelf components.

Not even. It should be absolute positively minimal, fully documented and
_everything_ should be svn'ed. Zope.org suffers from having zero people
with time and inclination to maintain it. That's the real problem here.
Last time Plone was touted as the silver bullet for that, and we can see
how well that turned out...

> later would make all of us look better. PloneHelpCenter and
> PloneSoftwareCenter work well now.

Honestly, flat html files in Apache would probably work better and be
easier to maintain...

> * The site should be built with software that is actively maintained
> independently of a zope2.org site.

I think it should be built off either a default distro of Zope 2 or of
Zope 3. That said, I think Zope 2.9+ covers both those bases...

Chris

--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

Chris Withers <chris <at> simplistix.co.uk> writes:

> I hate to say it in this context, but not if it's Plone based.

Somehow I don't think you dislike saying that :-)

> Once
> bitten, twice shy and all that. Plone was the big promise for the
> current zope.org and it simply hasn't delivered...

Considering it's a heavily customised, unmaintained version of pre-Plone-2 (from
what I'm told) it's not suprising that there have been problems. I'm not
actually quite sure which problem you're referring to, so the answer is
necessarily generic.

Zope.org has fairly minimal technical requirements - a skin, perhaps a content
type or two, and a bit of information architecture. Neither the problem nor the
challenge should be in the technology. Plone (i.e. a current, maintained
version, not FrankenPlone) would have no problem handling that, neither would
CPS or probably Tiks or Drupal or whatever else you wanted. This shouldn't be
about technology, it should be about designing an information architecture,
considering requirements carefully, designing a user friendly interface and skin
... all the things we do for our customers every time.

I'll note that Plone.org runs on Plone 2.1, handles a high load very well, and
has solved some of the product/software listing and documentation handling
problems that zope.org will have to solve as well. I'm happy to help share the
experiences from plone.org with others, and I'm sure wiggy, limi and the others
are too.

Martin

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

Geoff Davis <geoff <at> phds.org> writes:

>
> On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 17:11:00 +0100, Lennart Regebro wrote:
>
> > On 3/1/06, Geoff Davis <geoff <at> phds.org> wrote:
> >> Are there good CPS analogues to PloneSoftwareCenter / PloneHelpCenter?
> >
> > I doubt it, although I have no idea what they do.

They run plone.org/products and plone.org/documentation, respectively - they are
designed to make it easy for the community to contribute, review and maintain
add-in products (complete with issue trackers, roadmaps, documentation sections
and release management... all optional of course) and documentation (how-tos,
tutorials, reference manuals, error references etc.) They have worked extremely
well for Plone, increasing the quality of our documentation tenfold and the
availability of third party products to real users tremendously.

> > I was joking, really. ;) (Although CPS has one benefit over Plone;
> > it's faster, especially under loads).
>
> Yeah, Plone can be a bit pokey -- we're working on it! With the new
> caching infrastructure in the CacheFu product, it is quite speedy.
> plone.org, which uses it, does just fine under heavy traffic.

... and 2 ZEO clients on a single server behind Squid....

Martin


_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

Geoff,
Daily several of us (Michael, Martijn F, Phillip V, and a couple others)
utilize #zope-web to try and further work that has been going on for
awhile to get a suitable zope.org rolled out and upgraded that the
community can be proud of. There are people working on docs, marketing
data, newsletters, layout/design upgrades and more. Please participate
in the existing drive, not start a new one. :)

I'd love to see ya drop by. There's no secret that the current site
needs fixing; lets pool the collective interest and get it finished
up.....

Andrew Sawyers


On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 12:09 -0500, Geoff Davis wrote:
> Hi all--
>
> I think the idea of a Zope 3 web site rewrite is a great one. However,
> since Zope 2 is going to continue to be around for awhile, I am wondering
> if we might be able to shore up the Zope 2 resources in a reasonable way?
>
> Migrating all the community content sounds like a herculean task; I'm
> talking about doing something with rather narrower scope. Here is what I
> propose:
>
> * Create a new zope.org (or zope2.org) for Zope 2 that is focused on 2
> things:
> 1) Distribution of Zope 2 and related add-ons
> 2) Documentation
>
> * Maintain all the old community content in the current instance and bind
> the two together using URL rewriting.
>
> The Plone community has developed a couple of products for distributing
> software (PloneSoftwareCenter) and for maintaining documentation
> (PloneHelpCenter). You can see these in action at
> http://plone.org/products and http://plone.org/documentation ,
> respectively.
>
> I know that zope.org gets a lot of traffic; we also have a product for
> making Plone play nicely with Squid.
>
> I think that people in the Plone community would be willing to help out
> with getting such a site set up. The bigger task would be moving
> community content to the new setup.
>
> Is there any interest?
>
> Geoff
>
> _______________________________________________
> Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

Geoff is offering to help on the existing site. That's an urgent need,
from all the (ahem) constructive responses I've seen to his note. The
more he helps on the current site, the less pressure you'll have on the
"start-from-scratch" plan.

I've seen the point made in this thread about choosing Plone and no
Plone people helping. Here's the reason I went from very active to
inactive:

http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-web/2003-July/002764.html

I never got a response to that note. Actually, I did get a one word
private response from the ZC CFO: "Understood". Perhaps things changed,
but like others, I got the message about the value of my contributions.

Plone pre-1.0 might be part of the problem. But the bigger problem is
the red tape and attitude. Plone.org, OTOH, has over a hundred
how-to's, over 20 long tutorials, good doc organization, active system
administration, great performance, and around 4 active
*documentation-only* reviewers. Even atop that "awful" Plone software. :^)

zope.org is dead. plone.org is quite alive. What's the difference in
these two?

For what ever reason, zope.org gives off a distinct "you're not wanted
here" vibe, especially if you're a Plone person.

--Paul


Andrew Sawyers wrote:
> Geoff,
> Daily several of us (Michael, Martijn F, Phillip V, and a couple others)
> utilize #zope-web to try and further work that has been going on for
> awhile to get a suitable zope.org rolled out and upgraded that the
> community can be proud of. There are people working on docs, marketing
> data, newsletters, layout/design upgrades and more. Please participate
> in the existing drive, not start a new one. :)
>
> I'd love to see ya drop by. There's no secret that the current site
> needs fixing; lets pool the collective interest and get it finished
> up.....
>
> Andrew Sawyers
>
>
> On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 12:09 -0500, Geoff Davis wrote:
>> Hi all--
>>
>> I think the idea of a Zope 3 web site rewrite is a great one. However,
>> since Zope 2 is going to continue to be around for awhile, I am wondering
>> if we might be able to shore up the Zope 2 resources in a reasonable way?
>>
>> Migrating all the community content sounds like a herculean task; I'm
>> talking about doing something with rather narrower scope. Here is what I
>> propose:
>>
>> * Create a new zope.org (or zope2.org) for Zope 2 that is focused on 2
>> things:
>> 1) Distribution of Zope 2 and related add-ons
>> 2) Documentation
>>
>> * Maintain all the old community content in the current instance and bind
>> the two together using URL rewriting.
>>
>> The Plone community has developed a couple of products for distributing
>> software (PloneSoftwareCenter) and for maintaining documentation
>> (PloneHelpCenter). You can see these in action at
>> http://plone.org/products and http://plone.org/documentation ,
>> respectively.
>>
>> I know that zope.org gets a lot of traffic; we also have a product for
>> making Plone play nicely with Squid.
>>
>> I think that people in the Plone community would be willing to help out
>> with getting such a site set up. The bigger task would be moving
>> community content to the new setup.
>>
>> Is there any interest?
>>
>> Geoff
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
>> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web
>
> _______________________________________________
> Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web
>

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

Chris Withers <chris <at> simplistix.co.uk> writes:


> Yup, you've hit the nail on the head. But, Plone has proved itself to
> require more maintenance than its predecessor.

You mean Plone has, or the way that Plone was put in place has?

> I've changed my opinion on this over the last year to be inline with
> Jens and Andrew: dump the lot, start again...

Or at least section it off to e.g. old.zope.org and lock that down.

> > * The site should be built largely with off-the-shelf components.
>
> Not even. It should be absolute positively minimal, fully documented and
> _everything_ should be svn'ed. Zope.org suffers from having zero people
> with time and inclination to maintain it. That's the real problem here.
> Last time Plone was touted as the silver bullet for that, and we can see
> how well that turned out...

So the problem was either Plone itself, or it was the way in which Plone was
implemented and customised.

> > later would make all of us look better. PloneHelpCenter and
> > PloneSoftwareCenter work well now.
>
> Honestly, flat html files in Apache would probably work better and be
> easier to maintain...

Depends on whether you want a single person to maintain it (and deal with skin
consistency etc.) or if you want to re-invigorate some community involvement.
plone.org/products and plone.org/documentation works very well because it
provides a well-defined, restricted set of content types that people can
contribute with, in a restricted location. If you want to contribute
documentation, it's easy to see where you do that, there's a review cycle, there
are tools to manage that content. Same with add-on products and modules - it
gives you a place to store, promote and manage the code you want to contribute.
By making it easy to contribute products and documentation, we've ultimately
made Plone a better and more useful system for our users. I don't see why this
shouldn't be the same on zope.org.

> > * The site should be built with software that is actively maintained
> > independently of a zope2.org site.
>
> I think it should be built off either a default distro of Zope 2 or of
> Zope 3. That said, I think Zope 2.9+ covers both those bases...

So it's better to build a custom CMS from scratch just for zope.org?

The thing that confuses me is that community-oriented sites like zope.org and
plone.org, which I hope you'll agree serve very similar purposes, is probably
the one use case that Plone handles better than all others, out of the box.
plone.org on plone 2.1, on a proper server and with a proper sysadmin now that
we have wiggy has been extremely stable, easy to manage and has
community-oriented components (the documentation and products sectios in
particular) that have re-invigorated community involvement and made Plone more
accessible to people more peripheral to the system. I can't see how zope.org
needs anything more than plone.org + a custom skin, the type of thing that Plone
developers build for their customers every day (and maintain for their customers
down the road). And there is a site there at the moment, that works, that proves
that the technology works. So why re-invent it?

Martin




_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

Martin Aspeli wrote:

>Chris Withers <chris <at> simplistix.co.uk> writes:
>
>
>>Yup, you've hit the nail on the head. But, Plone has proved itself to
>>require more maintenance than its predecessor.
>>
>>
>
>You mean Plone has, or the way that Plone was put in place has?
>

The funny thing is that Plone is absolutely beautifull for making a
comunity based site. Using Plone and a few existing products would be
all that was needed imho to have a vibrant zope.org.

Personally I loved the old zope.org, where you had your own area that
you could just go wild in.

I know that the problem is people using the site for uploading warez and
pron, but as it works now where every little piece of content has to be
approved just sucks. Releasing something, and then finding that you
forgot to submit a picture used in it, is ... like ... argh.

It could probably be solved better by having two types of members
'Member' and 'TrustedMember', where the Member would need to submit
their stuff, but trusted member could do as in the olden days and make
content visible themself.

While still keeping published content as the only visible thing on the
official part of the site.

--

hilsen/regards Max M, Denmark

http://www.mxm.dk/
IT's Mad Science

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

Max M <maxm <at> mxm.dk> writes:

> It could probably be solved better by having two types of members
> 'Member' and 'TrustedMember', where the Member would need to submit
> their stuff, but trusted member could do as in the olden days and make
> content visible themself.

Which of course you can do with about five clicks in Plone (add role, add group,
assign people to that group, add role to default workflows allowing the publish
transition)

Martin


_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

Martin Aspeli wrote:

>Max M <maxm <at> mxm.dk> writes:
>
>
>
>>It could probably be solved better by having two types of members
>>'Member' and 'TrustedMember', where the Member would need to submit
>>their stuff, but trusted member could do as in the olden days and make
>>content visible themself.
>>
>>
>
>Which of course you can do with about five clicks in Plone (add role, add group,
>assign people to that group, add role to default workflows allowing the publish
>transition)
>
>

I know.


I find it a bit amusing that I can go and change any code in the Plone
collective, but cannot be trusted to make visible content on zope.org :-s


There is practically nothing that cannot be made with the default
content in Plone if the the authors are technical people. Which we must
assume that zope.org members are.

Most of the time spend customizing a customers website is used to cater
for the non-technical user. But anybody with some knowledge of html can
do practically anything in Plone.


Adding extra content types for releases, blogs etc. is only sugar on top.

--

hilsen/regards Max M, Denmark

http://www.mxm.dk/
IT's Mad Science

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

If Plone works for product listing on plone.org, it should work for
product listing on zope.org.

Now, zope.org does much more than that, but if we combine the above
thought, with the earlier thought of splitting into new subsites that
one by one get "approved" by Zope Foundation, that ain't a problem.


So what do we need?

1. A project manager.
2. A server to put this on.
3. A design.

Then we can put up a products.something.foo, and try to get people to
register their products there instead of on zope.org, and if people
like it enough, step 5:

6. ZF can do a switcheroo so that the products on zope.org point to
the new server, as products.zope.org.

That's one part finished for a new zope.org. One of the biggest ones,
and not particularily painful even.

Yes, there is two steps missing:

4. Wait for ZF to become reality.
5. Identify the "parts" of zope.org in which to split it.

We will also pretty soon need step 7: A common login for all x.zope.orgs.
_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

Lennart Regebro wrote:
> If Plone works for product listing on plone.org, it should work for
> product listing on zope.org.
>
> Now, zope.org does much more than that, but if we combine the above
> thought, with the earlier thought of splitting into new subsites that
> one by one get "approved" by Zope Foundation, that ain't a problem.

Well said. We need to break the big problem into smaller problems that
don't require transient volunteers to sign up for eating an elephant. :^)

Along these lines, I think stabilizing the current dung heap should be
*one of* the projects. It's odd that we could make things better *right
now*, and smart people are trying to help, but others don't want them
to. It doesn't have to be zero sum.

> So what do we need?
>
> 1. A project manager.
> 2. A server to put this on.

This is probably the most important step, to improve the collaboration.
Offers have been made in the past by Zope hosters. I bet we could get
one, in exchange for the same credits given currently on zope.org.

> 3. A design.

Yep.

> Then we can put up a products.something.foo, and try to get people to
> register their products there instead of on zope.org, and if people
> like it enough, step 5:
>
> 6. ZF can do a switcheroo so that the products on zope.org point to
> the new server, as products.zope.org.
>
> That's one part finished for a new zope.org. One of the biggest ones,
> and not particularily painful even.
>
> Yes, there is two steps missing:
>
> 4. Wait for ZF to become reality.

I've seen this mentioned a number of times. I'm concerned about the
effect it might have. I remember in 2003, we had spent months waiting
on officialdom to legal things and were told:

"I suspect this will be finished by the end of next week."

http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-web/2003-March/002509.html

"One week" turned into 5 months. Meanwhile, all the volunteer
enthusiasm vanished. I feel the ZF is becoming that same kind of "Wait
for the adults to weigh in" vibe.

Everybody says that the software of zope.org is the culprit. Geoff is a
core contributor to that software, a board member of its foundation, and
the author of the caching integration to make it go fast. He's not
proposing a new system. He's proposing to improve the status quo,
without excluding other initiatives.

Having the existing site suck less, on the way to having a new non-Plone
plan, would be great. Geoff has said: "I'll do it." In my book, he
should get encouragement.

--Paul

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 09:52 +0100, Paul Everitt wrote:
> Geoff is offering to help on the existing site. That's an urgent need,
> from all the (ahem) constructive responses I've seen to his note. The
> more he helps on the current site, the less pressure you'll have on the
> "start-from-scratch" plan.
I understand - but I don't think 'starting' from scratch is as duanting
as it appears, because the scope is VERY VERY limited. I am excited
about making this happen. I'd like Geoff to assist making this happen.
I think it's close, and whatever effort is made towards the existing
site could literally launch a new one.

Andrew
>
> I've seen the point made in this thread about choosing Plone and no
> Plone people helping. Here's the reason I went from very active to
> inactive:
>
> http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-web/2003-July/002764.html
>
> I never got a response to that note. Actually, I did get a one word
> private response from the ZC CFO: "Understood". Perhaps things changed,
> but like others, I got the message about the value of my contributions.
>
> Plone pre-1.0 might be part of the problem. But the bigger problem is
> the red tape and attitude. Plone.org, OTOH, has over a hundred
> how-to's, over 20 long tutorials, good doc organization, active system
> administration, great performance, and around 4 active
> *documentation-only* reviewers. Even atop that "awful" Plone software. :^)
>
> zope.org is dead. plone.org is quite alive. What's the difference in
> these two?
>
> For what ever reason, zope.org gives off a distinct "you're not wanted
> here" vibe, especially if you're a Plone person.
>
> --Paul
>
>
> Andrew Sawyers wrote:
> > Geoff,
> > Daily several of us (Michael, Martijn F, Phillip V, and a couple others)
> > utilize #zope-web to try and further work that has been going on for
> > awhile to get a suitable zope.org rolled out and upgraded that the
> > community can be proud of. There are people working on docs, marketing
> > data, newsletters, layout/design upgrades and more. Please participate
> > in the existing drive, not start a new one. :)
> >
> > I'd love to see ya drop by. There's no secret that the current site
> > needs fixing; lets pool the collective interest and get it finished
> > up.....
> >
> > Andrew Sawyers
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 12:09 -0500, Geoff Davis wrote:
> >> Hi all--
> >>
> >> I think the idea of a Zope 3 web site rewrite is a great one. However,
> >> since Zope 2 is going to continue to be around for awhile, I am wondering
> >> if we might be able to shore up the Zope 2 resources in a reasonable way?
> >>
> >> Migrating all the community content sounds like a herculean task; I'm
> >> talking about doing something with rather narrower scope. Here is what I
> >> propose:
> >>
> >> * Create a new zope.org (or zope2.org) for Zope 2 that is focused on 2
> >> things:
> >> 1) Distribution of Zope 2 and related add-ons
> >> 2) Documentation
> >>
> >> * Maintain all the old community content in the current instance and bind
> >> the two together using URL rewriting.
> >>
> >> The Plone community has developed a couple of products for distributing
> >> software (PloneSoftwareCenter) and for maintaining documentation
> >> (PloneHelpCenter). You can see these in action at
> >> http://plone.org/products and http://plone.org/documentation ,
> >> respectively.
> >>
> >> I know that zope.org gets a lot of traffic; we also have a product for
> >> making Plone play nicely with Squid.
> >>
> >> I think that people in the Plone community would be willing to help out
> >> with getting such a site set up. The bigger task would be moving
> >> community content to the new setup.
> >>
> >> Is there any interest?
> >>
> >> Geoff
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
> >> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
> > http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

On 2/24/06, Geoff Davis <geoff@phds.org> wrote:
> Is there any interest?

I think we can conclude, that Yes, there is. Let go.
Time and servers, however, are less abundant. ;)

--
Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/
CPS Content Management http://www.cps-project.org/
_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Chris Withers <chris <at> simplistix.co.uk> writes:
>
>
>> Yup, you've hit the nail on the head. But, Plone has proved itself to
>> require more maintenance than its predecessor.
>
> You mean Plone has, or the way that Plone was put in place has?

Every single Plone project I've ever worked on has required more
maintenance than zope.org will ever see ;-)

>> I've changed my opinion on this over the last year to be inline with
>> Jens and Andrew: dump the lot, start again...
>
> Or at least section it off to e.g. old.zope.org and lock that down.

Nope, dump it. We tried sectioning it off last time and people were
still relying on it when it finally broke and couldn't be fixed...

> So the problem was either Plone itself, or it was the way in which Plone was
> implemented and customised.

No, the problem was using a set of complex components to solve a problem
that is never going to see the maintenance necessary to make a complex
set of components a viable solution ;-)

>> I think it should be built off either a default distro of Zope 2 or of
>> Zope 3. That said, I think Zope 2.9+ covers both those bases...
>
> So it's better to build a custom CMS from scratch just for zope.org?

Yup, but one that is much much simpler that any framework. It doesn't
need to be complicated and it doesn't need 90% of the features that
things like Plone or CPS add to the mix...

cheers,

Chris

--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

Chris Withers <chris <at> simplistix.co.uk> writes:

> > You mean Plone has, or the way that Plone was put in place has?
>
> Every single Plone project I've ever worked on has required more
> maintenance than zope.org will ever see

I have no way of judging whether that's a valid comparison, without knowing how
much maintenance zope.org will see and what degree of complexity your Plone
projects were.

> > So the problem was either Plone itself, or it was the way in which Plone was
> > implemented and customised.
>
> No, the problem was using a set of complex components to solve a problem
> that is never going to see the maintenance necessary to make a complex
> set of components a viable solution

plone.org doesn't see much continuous maintenance. There is some work going on
to improve (not maintain) some of the components we've built to make running the
site easier, which will continue and would be available to zope.org as well. I
don't see how the zope.org use case is much different from the plone.org one,
and plone.org runs very well in Plone, and you're going to have a hard time
convincing me that Plone is not an appropriate technology for plone.org and
similar sites.

> >> I think it should be built off either a default distro of Zope 2 or of
> >> Zope 3. That said, I think Zope 2.9+ covers both those bases...
> >
> > So it's better to build a custom CMS from scratch just for zope.org?
>
> Yup, but one that is much much simpler that any framework. It doesn't
> need to be complicated and it doesn't need 90% of the features that
> things like Plone or CPS add to the mix...

What complexity would you get rid of exactly?

Martin



_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

On 3/3/06, Chris Withers <chris@simplistix.co.uk> wrote:
> Yup, but one that is much much simpler that any framework. It doesn't
> need to be complicated and it doesn't need 90% of the features that
> things like Plone or CPS add to the mix...

Does anybody have a feeling for if it is feasible to run the
PloneProducts or whatever the name was, on pure CMF?

The combination CMF + that product + maybe CPSSkins could be all that
is needed for a new products.zope.org.

--
Lennart Regebro, Nuxeo http://www.nuxeo.com/
CPS Content Management http://www.cps-project.org/
_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On 3/3/06, Chris Withers <chris@simplistix.co.uk> wrote:
>> Yup, but one that is much much simpler that any framework. It doesn't
>> need to be complicated and it doesn't need 90% of the features that
>> things like Plone or CPS add to the mix...
>
> Does anybody have a feeling for if it is feasible to run the
> PloneProducts or whatever the name was, on pure CMF?

Before NZO was launched, Sidnei provided a URL that ran NZO without
Plone, only CMF.

--Paul

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

Lennart Regebro <regebro <at> gmail.com> writes:

>
> On 3/3/06, Chris Withers <chris <at> simplistix.co.uk> wrote:
> > Yup, but one that is much much simpler that any framework. It doesn't
> > need to be complicated and it doesn't need 90% of the features that
> > things like Plone or CPS add to the mix...
>
> Does anybody have a feeling for if it is feasible to run the
> PloneProducts or whatever the name was, on pure CMF?
>
> The combination CMF + that product + maybe CPSSkins could be all that
> is needed for a new products.zope.org.

You mean PloneSoftwareCenter?

As the name implies, it's Plone-centric, built on Archetypes, and it would
probably take quite some time to get it to work on plain CMF. But honestly, I
don't see how that would make anything any easier. It's very simple to configure
a minimal Plone instance that has only the PSC, a PAS-backed authentication
source and very little else.

Yes, Plone is a product (in the traditional sense, not the Zope sense) that is
built with a lot of components. That doesn't mean that to *use* that product,
you need to understand, configure or deal with all those components.
mkzopeinstance, tar xzf Plone-2.1.3.tar.gz, tar xzf PloneSoftwareCenter.tar.gz,
bin/zopctl start, add PSC, add a Software Center, turn off the content types you
don't want... it's like 30 minutes of work with a coffee break.

Martin

_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web